THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT: THE DRAMATIC STORY OF THE PACT BETWE

[admin]

35. Interpellation

GERMANY liked what happened in Prague on August 24. Before the end of the day, the six-month suspension of the ZVfD's Juedische Rundschau had been lifted without explanation. As if to vindicate itself, the Rundschau quickly printed Congress coverage that explained, "Within the Congress it was of course only the small, but very militant Revisionist group which wanted to convert the Zionist Organization into a sort of fighting unit. This group ... [proposed] a boycott resolution .... The Congress defeated this motion by a vast majority whereupon turbulent scenes ensued .... The Congress ... clearly demonstrated that Zionism does not fight with weapons of that sort." [1]

Der Deutsche, the newspaper of the Nazi Labor Front, devoted most of its August 25 front page to a positive reaction to Dr. Ruppin's emigration plan. "The view of the Zionist Congress represents a proposal which is acceptable and interesting," Der Deutsche said. "Without doubt, Jews living in Germany have all kinds of opportunities to get along in the world, even outside Palestine .... The emigration of a large part of the Jews from Germany would, aside from other things, provide room for German unemployed." Der Deutsche added, however, that the question of just how much in Jewish assets could be transferred was still in debate. [2]

German newspapers took care to continue their scintillating leaks about the Transfer Agreement. [3] Many Jews around the world were beginning to understand what this Transfer Agreement was all about. It was more than just an assets transfer. It was an assets transfer in exchange for a merchandise market in Palestine.

Holders of German bonds, loans, and investments around the world, had all been implored to forgo the material gain of trafficking in Nazi wares to alleviate losses should the Reich economy collapse. But now the Zionist Organization was willing to betray the boycott in exchange for the same economic stimulus many in the world were being urged to relinquish. In the minds of boycotting Jews, the Transfer Agreement was an unthinkable breach of the boycott -- dressed up with emigration, rationalized by the urgent need to develop Palestine, but nonetheless a great breach of the boycott.

Anti-transfer telegrams began arriving in Prague by Friday morning, August 25. Paris: "DEEPLY SURPRISED AT NEWS ABOUT RUPPIN'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH NAZI GOVERNMENT RE EXPORT CAPITAL JEWISH EMIGRANTS IN THE FORM OF NAZI GOODS STOP ... AGREEMENT IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT COUNTERACTS THE BOYCOTT MOVEMENT AND IS IMMORAL FOR JEWS STOP. .. WE ASK YOU TO DISAPPROVE THESE NEGOTIATIONS STOP ... signed DEFENSE COMMITTEE FOR PERSECUTED GERMAN JEWS." [4]

Warsaw: "WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT RUPPIN'S STATEMENT RE AGREEMENT ALLEGEDLY CONCLUDED WITH GERMAN GOVERNMENT CONCERNING EMIGRATION GERMAN JEWS STOP WE REJECT CATEGORICALLY IDEA OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH NAZI GOVERNMENT STOP SHOULD SUCH NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENT REALLY HAVE TAKEN PLACE THE UNDERSIGNED ORGANIZATIONS PROTEST IN THE NAME OF MANY MILLIONS OF POLISH JEWS STOP ... OUR PROTEST ALL THE MORE VIGOROUS SINCE THIS AGREEMENT WAS CONCLUDED ON EVE OF WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS IN GENEVA signed CENTRAL UNION OF MERCHANTS CENTRAL UNION OF JEWISH CRAFTSMEN CENTRAL UNION OF RETAILERS." [5]

New York: "SOME DAYS AGO I SENT LIPSKY LONG CABLE URGING BOYCOTT RESOLUTION . . . ASKING IT TO BE READ TO CONVENTION ON WHICH I RESPECTFULLY INSIST STOP FEEL CONVENTION SHOULD ALSO VOTE ON BOYCOTT RESOLUTION REGARDLESS signed UNTERMYER." [6]

Telegrams from important members of the Zionist community did not dissuade Mapai forces from enacting their program. The Friday-morning August 25 session began with an announcement by Ben-Gurion that henceforth halutzim must be accorded precedence for labor immigration certificates to Palestine. [7] Halutzim were the young pioneers of the Zionist movement. Idealistic youths would enter the program, then move on to training camps known as hachsharah to learn the manual and agricultural skills as well as philosophical insights needed to become leaders in Eretz Ysrael. When Jewish Palestine had a place, selected halutzim immigrated, and assumed key positions in the labor force and on kibbutzim. By 1933, more than half the Jewish Palestinian work force and about 80 percent of the kibbutzniks were halutzim. The vast majority of this Zionist vanguard were steeped in European socialist thought and were active members of Mapai. [8]

But in Germany, there were fewer than 3,000 halutzim, [9] and many of those were non-Germans residing in the Reich. Clearly the pauperized German Jewish masses -- traditionally not involved in Zionist youth training -- would have great difficulty being selected for entry to Palestine. However, Mapai wanted the worker immigrant quota filled not so much by German halutzim as by halutzim from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and other nations. Dr. Ruppin had in fact hinted that the great Palestinian structure to be yielded by the German crisis would have to serve the needs of Jewish communities throughout Europe, and not just Germany. [10]

Halutzim of course were far better prepared for the rugged living and working conditions in Palestine. Many a middle-class immigrant, similar to the German Jews, had failed in Palestine for lack of the necessary manual or agricultural training. But Ben-Gurion drove home his ideological priorities when he told the Congress that Friday morning why halutzim should be taken first: "If this is a class war, we shall carry it on. But the problem between capital and labor cannot be decided at the Zionist Congress .... The Zionist Congress is concerned only with the most rapid building up of Palestine." Nor was Ben-Gurion interested in widening the halutz program to encompass those who were not true believers of the Mapai mold. In fact, he had every intention of keeping undesirable elements out, including the Revisionists. [11] The result would be a Jewish State cast in the image of Mapai.

Ben-Gurion's demand provoked criticism from the other parties, who understood that Mapai's control would now allow it to usurp the entire immigration certificate system. But while the Mizrachi, General Zionists, and Radical Zionists were busy responding to Mapai's immigration position, Revisionist delegates were thinking about the Transfer Agreement. Although they had walked out en masse the night before when their boycott resolution was denied a vote, they had decided to remain for subsequent sessions. The Transfer Agreement, still shrouded in ambiguity, had raised a storm of protest around the world. If the agreement was what the Revisionists suspected, the details had to be aired before the delegates, the world media, and world Jewry.

The presidium could block almost any attempt to debate the transfer issue. But one of the Revisionists believed he could circumvent the presidium by invoking the right of interpellation. The parliamentary procedure of interpellation guaranteed delegates the right to introduce a special question for clarification. In the middle of the Friday session, Meir Grossman stood up and announced; "The Democratic Revisionist faction poses the following question .... In yesterday's newspapers there was a report that an agreement has been concluded between Zionists and the German government ... that Palestine will purchase 3 million marks' worth of goods from Germany and that in return the German government will release a like amount of the property of the Jews." [12]

Grossman's unexpected comments captured the attention of the delegates. He went on to protest that the Transfer Agreement would divide the Zionist movement from a world Jewry bent on boycotting Hitler. "We consider this agreement to be an outrage and not compatible with the Jewish people's moral and material interest," declared Grossman. "We are asking the Executive whether this agreement was concluded with the Executive's encouragement or knowledge and whether agencies or offices of the Zionist Organization are participating in these negotiations. [13]

"We consider clearing up this matter to be urgent and important, particularly since yesterday the majority of the Congress refused a general debate about the events in Germany and has thereby made a detailed investigation of these events impossible. We expect the Executive will reply to this inquiry quickly and thereby give the Congress an opportunity for discussion. My faction has raised this subject because it is one more proof of the need for vigilance. We are beset by dangers and certain people are not as reliable as we had thought." At that, Grossman received an outburst of applause from the delegates. [14]

Up to that point, the Zionist leaders involved in the Transfer Agreement had been able to avoid the question of their involvement. Ruppin had identified Mr. Sam Cohen as the negotiator of the deal. If in fact the Transfer Agreement had been negotiated by and was to be implemented under the Zionist Organization or its components, the Congress plenum would have the right to discuss and ratify the question.

Grossman was waiting for his answer. The curious and by now apprehensive delegates of all the parties were waiting. What was the Transfer Agreement and who was responsible for it?

The presidium conferred briefly, and Grossman received his answer: Due to the approaching sunset, the Congress would adjourn for Sabbath. Motzkin gaveled and the session was over. [15]

Before the delegates and reporters dispersed, however, Jabotinsky called an impromptu press conference outside the hall. Over one hundred journalists and scores of delegates gathered around as the fiery orator delivered the full anti-Nazi speech he had been prevented from presenting the day before. He tore into both the Congress' refusal to join the boycott and the Transfer Agreement. "We sympathize with the position of our German brethren. Let them remain loyal to Germany. But Hitlerism is a danger to the sixteen million Jews all over the world, and ... the German Jews cannot influence us not to fight our enemy. Our enemy must be destroyed!" [16]

Jabotinsky then declared that because the Zionist Organization had refused to establish the international network needed for the boycott, the 100,000 members of the Revisionists, all their offices and resources all over the world would do so. There would be no haggling over leadership with such people as Samuel Untermyer. The Revisionists would cooperate fully with all existing boycott groups. As for the Transfer Agreement, Jabotinsky flatly denounced it as humiliating. He vowed that the Jews in Palestine would never abandon the boycott, never purchase German goods imported via the agreement, and that the agreement and those connected with it were doomed. Jabotinsky called for the Jews of the world to unite, abandon the Zionist Organization, and take up their rightful place in the economic trenches confronting Hitler. [17]

***

The Saturday-night session, just after Sabbath, was reserved for general debate. Mapai and their allies wanted to suppress any discussion of the Transfer Agreement and instead continue the verbal war against Revisionism. But before the chair could designate the first speaker, Meir Grossman again invoked his privilege of interpellation. "Yesterday we addressed an urgent interpellation to the Executive and asked for a reply," Grossman stated. "In the meantime, the English press had published reports about an agreement between Germany and Zionists -- a matter which the English cannot understand [referring to Germany's trade advantage]. We request that the Executive ... reply today to our urgent inquiry." [18]

Presidium chairman Motzkin answered, "In the bylaws about interpellations, there is nothing that says when an interpellation is urgent." [19]

Grossman shot back, "I propose that the Congress determine the urgency of our interpellation and instruct the Executive to provide a reply sometime tomorrow." [20]

At this point Berl Locker spoke up. Locker was the Executive member who had worked with Sam Cohen on his initial deal in May. Locker stated, "The interpellation referred to by Mr. Grossman has no connection with any action or negotiation conducted by the Executive or ordered by it. In view of today being the Sabbath, the Executive has had no opportunity to conduct a meeting. But it will deal with the interpellation at its next session and will inform the Congress whether it will submit its findings in this matter to the Congress or to a committee." [21]

Before Grossman could respond, Motzkin said, "We acknowledge this statement by the Executive. I only wish to say that it is entirely up to the Executive whether it gives or does not give an answer. We will now proceed with the general debate." [22]

Locker had forestalled an unpredictable delegate reaction first by lying about the Executive's involvement, and then by appearing to be reasonable by offering to investigate and then report either to the Congress or to a committee. The or was carefully added so the Executive could simply make that report to a "committee" and yet live up to the promise uttered before the entire plenum.

To turn the Congress away from the transfer and back to Mapai's preferred enemy, Palestinian Labor leader Zalman Rubaschov -- who would later become Israeli president Zalman Shalazar -- then launched an acidic attack against the Revisionists, characterizing them as "gangrene" that had to be cut away at the proper time. Jabotinsky, upon hearing Rubaschov's words, demonstratively stood up and walked out of the hall. Rubaschov all the more emphatically urged his fellow Laborites to remove the "pernicious, obnoxious elements in our midst." [23]

Joseph Schechtman, a Jabotinsky associate, rose to voice a Revisionist rebuttal. However, before his first sentences were complete, the entire Mapai delegation stood up and walked out. Even as they were exiting, Schechtman denounced their "milk and water resolution on the German situation" and the Congress' refusal to join the boycott as "capitulation to the forces of Hitlerist Germany." [24]

When the session finally resumed, Revisionists were anxious to demand more details of the Transfer Agreement. But the proceeding was interrupted by what many believed was a staged emergency. Someone dramatically handed Motzkin a telegram: Motzkin reacted with a look of shock. The presidium then passed the telegram around, conspicuously whispered among themselves, and announced that the session would be adjourned at once. [25]

The presidium made no formal announcement, but word quickly spread that the cable had come from Palestine. It claimed that one of the Revisionists on trial for the murder of Arlosoroff had "confessed to the crime." Mapai could now rally the Congress in a moment of passion to expel the entire Revisionist party. The Laborites were ecstatic. The Revisionists reacted to the news with confusion and fear. [26]

Both camps were milling about in the lobby when Jabotinsky reentered from his previous walkout. Supporters nervously explained news of the cable from Palestine. Jabotinsky immediately broke into laughter. He summoned all his followers to a caucus and urged them not to despair. "I guarantee that the telegram is a fake.... It is late, and I advise you to get some sleep. And when you wake in the morning, you will find out that the telegram was a fake." [27]

The next day, the Congress delegates quickly learned the "confession cable" was in fact a fake. [28] Still, the false alarm had served to foreclose debate one more day on the truly pressing issue: the Transfer Agreement. But that issue would soon become irresistible. The Nazis were waging a propaganda war, and they had more news to release.

[admin]

36. The Golden Orange

REICH OFFICIALS reacted nervously to Jabotinsky's break with the Zionist Organization. His August 25 announcement that Revisionism would use its international facilities to coordinate the boycott prompted Nazi leaders to suspect that Jabotinsky was Zionism's other hand, working for the demise of Germany's economy. Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler's personal theorist on Jewish and Zionist affairs, printed a stinging editorial in the August 26 Volkischer Beobachter. Rosenberg labeled the watered-down majority resolution on the German situation as "shocking interference in the internal political affairs of Germany." Because the Congress "was not courageous enough to expel the Jabotinsky-led group," Rosenberg concluded that "Jewry is instigating a new campaign against Germany." He warned that the texts of Congress resolutions would be rigorously examined to determine exactly what Zionism's policy would be. [1]

Jabotinsky tried not to disappoint the worried Nazis. His followers openly organized boycott meetings with visiting businessmen in Prague. One idea was to make sure that importers switching to non-German suppliers had no difficulty establishing new credit. [2] The logic was inescapable. If a Jewish-sponsored global finance network could promote German exports, a Jewish-sponsored global network could undermine German exports.

Jabotinsky also announced that he had sent a cable to Samuel Untermyer: "SHOULD LIKE TO COORDINATE REVISIONIST BOYCOTT ACTIVITY WITH YOUR FEDERATION STOP PLEASE INSTRUCT YOUR PARIS REPRESENTATIVE." Elias Ginsburg, a key Jabotinsky organizer in America, was already one of Untermyer's main boycott activists. To underscore his willingness to support Untermyer, Jabotinsky assured Ginsburg, "I need not add what decisive importance we attach to Mr. Untermyer's personality and to the Federation headed by him. It is our fervent wish to coordinate all our activity with this powerful factor." [3]

Outside Prague, where Jews were beginning to feel a deep sense of betrayal, there was open talk of renouncing the Zionist Organization altogether if the price of allegiance required abandonment of the holy war against Hitler. One of the most outspoken was, of course, Untermyer. During an August 27 Youngstown, Ohio, address to B'nai B'rith lodges from three states -- broadcast nationally by CBS radio -- Untermyer appealed to the B'nai B'rith rank and file to break with their national leaders and fall in behind the boycott crusade. "Your representatives in the East ... made a grave mistake in aligning you with the American Jewish Committee in opposing the ... boycott, which is the only weapon available ... [against Hitler's] barbarous campaign of extermination. You are thereby unwittingly denying to your stricken brethren in Germany ... [their] only hope of effective relief." [4]

He explained, "These gentlemen [the Committee] are a self-appointed, self-perpetuating body who represent no constituents other than themselves. Unlike your organization, they have no specific mandate from any section of the Jewish people and therefore are accountable to no one for their self-appointed task." B'nai B'rith members needed to understand how they had been misused, Untermyer said. The Congress had "seen the error of its ways, and has had the courage to break away" and join the boycott movement. Would not B'nai B'rith do the same? [5]

Turning to the Zionist Organization and the Transfer Agreement, Untermyer's threats were equally unbuffered. "The Zionist Organization had no business to enter upon any such negotiations." And he warned, "If they accede to any such terms, or to any terms other than to offer to take care of the very limited number of German Jews whom they can locate in Palestine or care for ... [then] they will rightly destroy their organization in this country." [6]

Untermyer, a leading American Zionist and Palestine contributor, knew that the American wing of the Zionist Organization was an indispensable column upon which the entire world movement balanced. American numbers, American contributions, and American political involvement made American Jewry a powerhouse in Zionism. That power could be shut off -- or reconnected to another house, especially the house of Revisionism, which wanted to establish a rival worldwide Zionist organization.

The boycott champion told B'nai B'rith that he well understood the reasoning of many Prague delegates. "[They] had been warned if they voted for a boycott, the absurd abortive negotiations ... to permit German Jews to be taken out of Germany would be terminated." Untermyer declared that he wished the negotiations would be terminated, because "It is playing into the hands of the enemy, and destroying the only opportunity ... to liberate their victims by bringing about the certain economic downfall of the Hitler regime." [7]

Summoning Jews and non-Jews everywhere to resist the idea of the Transfer Agreement, Untermyer ended his say with these words: "It is simply inconceivable that we should ever become parties to such an unholy compact." [8]

It was clear to Nazi party leaders that dissident Zionist elements might override the relationship Germany had forged with the Zionist Organization. So, on August 27, more leaks ran in the Berlin press. This time, though, the items were not on the Transfer Agreement per se, but one of the purely commercial undertakings between Palestine and Germany. The subject was oranges.

Germany not only held the power over Jewish Palestine's future growth, Germany held the power over Jewish Palestine's very existence. The bulk of the Jewish Palestinian economy was based on just one factor: citrus exports, accounting for about 80 percent of exports and almost as much of the gross national product. Great Britain was the leading purchaser. The second largest customer was Germany. Third Reich importers accounted for roughly 19 percent of the Palestine crop and in 1933 were expected to increase their buying substantially as crop yields grew. Without an utterly successful orange sale for the 1933-34 season, the Palestinian economy would be undermined overnight. [9]

Palestine did not thrive on a mixed economy. Its so-called factories were generally no more than workshops. Its second most important product was soap, representing just a few percent of its gross national product. [10] Moreover, oranges lived by their own clock. They had to be picked, processed, packed, shipped, distributed, and sold on a very tight schedule. Delaying any leg of the journey just a few weeks could devastate the entire crop.

Palestine's 1932 orange crop was 4.3 million cases -- roughly a million cases more than the 1931 harvest. In mid-1933 most experts were expecting the coming season to yield more than 6 million crates. Fruit brokers declared Palestine was "drowning in fruit." And yet the world was in a state of depression. Foreign currency in Germany had been curtailed for most nonessential imports. What's more, Spanish oranges were threatening to dangerously undersell Palestinian Jaffas. [11]

Nothing could have been easier for Germany than to disallow Palestinian orange imports. The result would have been sudden, perhaps insurmountable, economic disaster for Palestine. But Germany had several reasons for wanting Palestine's orange trade to flourish. For one, if Palestine was to be the receptacle for Germany's Jews, it would need to be viable. Purchasing Jaffas was therefore as essential to Nazi planning as solving the Jewish question. In fact, to a large extent, purchasing Jaffas was solving the Jewish question. What's more, a continuing German purchasing power in Palestine was the greatest motive for the Zionist movement to abstain from the boycott. If Germany could not sell her exports, there would be no money to purchase 15 percent or more of the 1933-34 citrus crop.

Furthermore, in view of the expected hardships, all food questions in Germany had been commandeered by both the Reich Ministry for Food and the Nazi party's department for agrarian trade, known as the Landhandelsbund. Wholly apart from the transfer contacts, negotiations had been under way for some months between the Landhandelsbund, German Zionists, and Palestinian citrus brokers. [12] Germany wanted to buy extra oranges, but could not find the foreign currency.

On August 27, the Berliner Tageblatt led the German press in leaking the story: A massive agreement was nearing completion. The Landhandelsbund would take about RM 10 million in Palestinian citrus from the coming crop; in return Palestine would take double, perhaps triple that amount in German products. No cash was involved; it was a straight barter. All goods and produce would be shipped on German vessels. [13]

Jews were confused and provoked by the emotionally charged, still hazy Transfer Agreement. But this clearly understandable mutual trade pact between Palestine and Germany ignited the Jewish and even the non-Jewish community to almost universal outrage against the whole question of Zionist dealings with the Hitler regime. Quickly dubbed the "Golden Orange," the revelations suddenly focused the issue clearly in almost everybody's mind. Palestine and Germany were business partners.

At first, the orange deal was not believed. London papers only skeptically picked up the story for their August 27 late-Sunday editions. Scores of angry citizens immediately called Zionist Organization headquarters in London demanding information. When the Zionist Organization denied all knowledge of the orange barter, people turned to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency for details. The JTA, however, could provide little more than what it reprinted from the Berlin papers. [14]

Astonished correspondents from the major newspapers and wire services in London and Palestine also tried in vain to verify the report. No one knew anything. In Prague, Zionist leaders issued only emphatic disclaimers that whatever this supposed orange agreement was or wasn't, it was wholly unrelated to the Transfer Agreement. [15]

Boycotters were trying to make Germany starve that winter. They could not believe that Palestine would stymie this effort so near success with a food barter for a cashless Reich. British boycott champion Captain Webber was quick to issue a statement of disbelief: "The chief purpose of the German Land Trade League [Landhandelsbund] is to throw ridicule upon the Jewish boycott. Last week I heard a rumor that the Land Trade League was endeavoring to launch something of this kind and personally received assurance from the Zionist Organization that there was nothing whatever in it. Any agreement between Germany and Palestine is naturally an agreement between Germany and Jews; therefore the Zionist Organization would be the first to hear about it. I feel sure that tonight's report has no foundation in fact. I consider it an attempt to belittle us, particularly in the eyes of the United States." [16]

Everything was getting confused. The Transfer Agreement ... the barter deal. Surely they were part of the same arrangement? Or were they? The media, the diplomatic community, the world's Jews, the Zionist movement -- they were all understandably mixing apples and oranges in comprehending the two agreements. Answers were demanded. Attention focused on the Monday night August 28 plenary session. Not only was Grossman's interpellation due to be answered, but the delegates were scheduled to debate Arlosoroff murder allegations openly. Delegate emotion was clearly keyed up, and the debate promised to be explosive. Congress organizers could not allow the confrontation.

So the session was simply canceled. [17]

***

Lacking any credible rebuttals to orange deal reports, hesitant American, European and Palestinian journalists filed dispatches. The articles ran in the Tuesday, August 29, editions.

New York Times: NAZIS REPORT DEAL WITH PALESTINE ... "Berlin. A remarkable announcement by the German Land Trade League [Landhandelsbund] ... indicates, if correct, that the much-heralded Jewish boycott of German goods has certain qualifications. . .. The arrangement, according to this announcement, provides that Germany will import 8 million to 10 million marks' worth of Jaffa oranges, ... [and] Palestine ... will take 20 million marks' worth of German industrial products. The exports to Palestine are to consist principally of agricultural machinery, motors, refrigerators, textiles ... and machinery for ... small manufacturing plants for buttons, leather goods, wicker furniture, and similar household goods .... The goods will be shipped on German vessels." [18]

Palestine Post: PALESTINE TRADE WITH NAZIS ... "Berlin. The Handelsbund of the Nazi Party, has stated that the agreement with Palestine whereby oranges were to be imported into Germany in exchange for the import of manufactured articles is the result of negotiations carried on within the last three years with various Palestinian cooperatives. It also states that a German commission will proceed to Palestine to arrange the details." [19]

Jewish Daily Bulletin: BRITISH, PALESTINE GOVERNMENTS, ZIONISTS DENY REPORTS AS NAZIS REVEAL ORANGE DEAL ... "London. Considerable mystification exists here as to the purported Nazi-Palestine agreement ... with the general impression that the reports ... are incorrect, and an attempt to create feeling among the Jews that will lead to a breaking down of the boycott. . .. The Palestine government and the British Colonial Office here deny any knowledge of ... this astonishing and ambiguous agreement. It is pointed out [by Jewish and Zionist sources] that ... apart from the moral aspect of the deal on the anti-Nazi boycott, the agreement would represent a bad bargain." [20]

Haaretz: ON THE QUESTION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR AN ORANGE SHIPMENT TO GERMANY ... "Berlin. The Landhandelsbund ... of the Nazi Party [said] the agreement for a shipment of 18 million marks' worth of oranges has not yet definitely been completed. Negotiations are being held at the Reich Ministry for Food." [21]

Sharply worded denunciations from Zionist leaders and rank and file throughout the world poured into the special post office in the Congress hall. One of the most threatening came from Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, one of American Zionism's towering figures. Repeating the essence of his protest, Rabbi Silver told a Jewish Telegraph Agency interviewer: "If the reports of those two deals are correct, and I for one find them unthinkable and inconceivable, then every Jew who goes to Palestine becomes an importer of German goods into Palestine, and this at a time when we deny Jewry ... of the world the right to trade with Germany." [22]

Unable to conceal his fury, Rabbi Silver declared, "Why, the very idea of Palestinian Jewry negotiating with Hitler about business instead of demanding justice for the persecuted Jews of Germany is unthinkable. One might think that the whole affair was a bankruptcy sale and that the Jews of Palestine were endeavoring to salvage a few bargains for themselves. Palestinian Jewry should be showing the way to unified action and not be willing to victimize the rest of the world for a million crates of oranges." [23]

Understanding full well that the JTA would distribute his remarks throughout the world, Rabbi Silver made the following declaration: "This is a test case. Always Palestine has asked the Jews of the world to sacrifice for Palestine. Now the time has come to ask, will Palestine make a commercial sacrifice for the fifteen million Jews of the world? We say to the Palestinian Jews, we won't trade with the enemy and we won't permit the Jews of Palestine to." [24]

Untermyer sent Prague a cablegram demanding that Zionist leaders comprehensively deny the orange agreement. The news was "probably untrue," said Untermyer's cable, and was undoubtedly "spread to injure the boycott that is daily growing more formidable." He then insisted the Eighteenth Zionist Congress disown any pact trafficking in Nazi merchandise, for "world Jewry will tolerate no dealings with Germany and will denounce any body that dares thus to sell our birthright for a mess of potage. We are loyal Palestinians," warned Untermyer, "but the outcome of this struggle is vastly more important than selling oranges." [25] Specifying the consequences, Untermyer threatened that unless the orange agreement was immediately investigated and denied, a convention of American Zionists would be summoned forthwith to repudiate the agreement, order the immediate recall of the entire U.S. delegation from Prague, and formally disassociate American Zionism from the Zionist Organization. [26]

If American Zionist organizers ordered their thirty delegates home, about 10 percent of the Congress would depart. Even American Mapai delegates would be obligated to return if Untermyer could persuade Mapai's American headquarters to pass a binding resolution recalling them. Non-American elements of Mizrachi and Revisionism would be happy to follow, thus subtracting another thirty or forty delegates. And since the American delegates held great power in the General Zionist party and the small Radical Zionist party, perhaps another ten delegates would also be compelled to walk out. Untermyer therefore had the power to trigger the departure of sixty to eighty delegates, or about 25 percent of the entire Congress. But beyond mere numbers, the American delegation played a politically and financially indispensable role in almost every Zionist effort, and this, too, would be lost.

He had done it before. Just one month earlier, Untermyer had created -- on a moment's notice -- the World Jewish Economic Federation in Amsterdam. And less than ten days before the Eighteenth Zionist Congress, Untermyer had swayed the American Jewish Congress to abandon Stephen Wise's leadership and by resolution compel him to declare for a boycott. The strongmen ofthe American Zionist movement were all in Prague. Untermyer could operate in America unchallenged, and had indeed already convinced New York regional Zionist organizations to demand Prague pass a boycott resolution. [27]

Untermyer wasn't to be toyed with, and Congress leaders knew it. [28]

***

The Tuesday morning August 29 session at Prague could not be postponed. Among the first scheduled to speak was Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, boiling with grievances against Mapai. First, Labor was close to engineering the return of Chaim Weizmann as president of the Zionist Organization; Wise despised Weizmann and was determined to prevent his reascendance. Second, because Mapai feared the boycott Wise would proclaim at Geneva and the competition of his World Jewish Congress, Mapai leaders had suddenly forced the Actions Committee to withdraw its endorsement of the Geneva conference. Third, Mapai leaders had encouraged the Board of Deputies to withdraw their co-sponsorship of the Geneva conference and convene their own counterconference in conjunction with the Zionist Organization, this one to coordinate worldwide relief donations. [29]

Wise was not winning. The best way he could strike back at Mapai was through a dramatic defense of the Revisionists, tying in the unacceptable policies of Weizmann for good measure. Wise began his speech with a stinging rebuke of Weizmann's address in Chicago advocating restricted Jewish settlement. One by one, Wise went on to discredit a range of other controversial Weizmann attitudes. If the delegates supported Weizmann, warned Wise, the movement would never recover. [30]

Continuing the attack, Wise lashed out directly at Mapai's plans for selective immigration for halutzim, who were steeped since childhood in the idealistic workers' society Mapai hoped to achieve. "Utopia!" cried Wise. "This is what Mapai is planning to create in Palestine. You may actually make a utopia out of the land of Israel, but don't delay its resettlement for the sake of this possible utopia." At this the Revisionists applauded loudly, while Mapai people rose to shout denigrations and denials. Wise went on, accusing the Laborites of trying to create a society in Eretz Yisrael where everyone who did not think like them or belong to their political party would be unable to gain entry or find work. Once more, the Revisionists cheered, while Mapai people hollered catcalls. [31]

At one point, Chairman Motzkin had so much difficulty restraining interruptions, he admonished that if Mapai did not behave he would punish them by letting Wise speak past his time limit. This threat tamed the unruly ones briefly; that is, until Wise ended his provocative speech, declaring that the "Congress must create peace among the factions. The majority represented by the Labor party is responsible for continuing the work in Palestine. But they must not say that only those Jews can enter who share their views." The entire Revisionist group then stood and applauded wildly, shouting congratulations. The Mapai group hissed and booed, calling Wise "ignorant" and a "liar," claiming the Revisionists had fed him lies. [32]

Wise's abrasive speech, coming from a leader of American Zionism, was a great blow to Mapai's prestige at the Congress. His comments conspicuously lacked any reference to the Transfer Agreement or the orange deal, probably because as breaches of the boycott he felt these issues should be confined to the Geneva Conference. However, others had not forgotten. Meir Grossman rose again to demand an answer to his interpellation.

"Three days ago," Grossman shouted, "we were told we would have a reply.... I believe we have shown fairness in waiting for it this long." Aware that Berl Locker had previously promised an answer to either the Congress plenum or a "committee," Grossman tried to head off a closed-door disclosure. "We will not be satisfied with merely a reply to the Political Committee. We want a reply to the Congress. I am asking the chairman whether the Executive will give us a reply." [33]

Locker answered: "The fact that so few plenary sessions have been held is the reason that Grossman's interpellation has not been answered until now. But this is our reply: The Executive has ... determined that the negotiations referred to in the interpellation had not been ordered by the Executive. We are prepared, however, to furnish additional details to the Political Committee. We will leave it up to the Political Committee whether or not it will communicate this reply to the plenary session." [34]

Chairman Motzkin added: "I wish to remind all concerned that the bylaws state the following about a reply to interpellations: 'Reply can be given orally or in writing; it can also be refused by the Executive with reason therefore.'" [35]

If Locker thought that he could deny the Executive's responsibility because the Anglo-Palestine Bank controlled the arrangement, Grossman here too, was one step ahead. "Inasmuch as Mr. Locker has declared that the Zionist Organization has nothing to do with the negotiations," Grossman added, "I wish to ask whether or not the Anglo-Palestine Bank is subject to supervision by the Executive?" [36]

The answer was obvious. Virtually everyone in the hall knew that the Zionist Organization owned the Anglo-Palestine Bank through subsidiaries and essentially controlled it through the Executive. Before Locker could respond, however, a Mapai delegate, Israel Mereminski, stood up and intervened. "To begin with, the Executive has stated that it has nothing to do with the agreement," Mereminski said. "In the second part of its statement, the Executive declared that ... this was a matter for the Political Committee." Defending Locker from the need to answer further, Mereminski rhetorically asked, "Does the Executive mean that it refuses to make a comprehensive statement before the Political Committee -- which deals with all political matters affecting the Congress -- has had a chance to examine the matter and decide whether ... the matter is to be submitted to the Congress? If this is the case, I believe it is sufficient reason not to reply to Grossman's inquiry." [37]

Locker interjected, "In my opinion, the Executive is entitled not to reply to an interpellation by stating the reason therefore .... The Executive wishes to ... furnish all details in its possession to the Political Committee. That should put an end to the matter." [38]

Motzkin added a helpful clarification: "Mr. Locker's statement should be understood to mean that the Executive will make its statements to the Political Committee; the Congress will then be entitled to deal with it. It is of course possible, Mr. Grossman, that after you have heard the Executive's statement to the Political Committee, you will withdraw your interpellation." [39] Motzkin's comment held out hope that perhaps if Grossman -- an alternate member of the Political Committee -- were briefed privately behind closed doors, he would understand the sensitivity of the issue and spare the full Congress a floor report.

But Grossman brushed aside any compromise. And since the Congress was due to hold its final session the next day, he added a new demand: "I propose that the Congress order the Executive to make its statement to the Political Committee today, and that the matter be submitted to the [full] Congress this evening or tomorrow morning." [40] This was the key demand. By having the statements made to the Political Committee within a few hours and reported at once to the floor, the delegates could then learn all the details and vote on rescinding the Transfer Agreement before the Congress disbanded.

Motzkin looked out at the faces of the delegates. For days, they had been bombarded by rumors, press leaks, and flying allegations. Rank and file back home were all demanding to know the truth about the Transfer Agreement. A response to Grossman's interpellation had been delayed three times, debate had been clotured, and sessions had been canceled.

It could go no further. Chairman Motzkin turned to Bed Locker and said, "We ask the Executive to furnish its statement to the Political Committee today." Cheers burst forth from the Revisionists. Before they became carried away, Motzkin added, "As to the second part [reporting the findings to the full Congress], we will talk about that tomorrow. We will now proceed with the general debate." [41] It is doubtful that in their exuberance the Revisionists were still paying attention. What was important was that finally the delegates would learn what they needed to know about the negotiations with Germany, and what in fact was the Transfer Agreement.

[admin]

37. The Political Committee

ELIEZER SIEGFRIED HOOFIEN was scribbling notes nervously. The Dutch-born Jew had enjoyed a meteoric rise within the movement since his early days as a financial assistant in the Cologne office of the Zionist Organization. During World War I, as manager of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, he had averted financial disaster by printing temporary banknotes when the Ottoman currency fell. After the war, as director-general of the Bank, E. S. Hoofien was involved in virtually every aspect of Palestine's commercial growth. [1]

When the potentials of German transfer were in danger of being lost, E. S. Hoofien was called in like a financial savior to redeem the opportunity. Indeed, he had almost single-handedly devised the transfer's intricate banking procedures. To the small circle of Zionists who knew of his recent accomplishment at Wilhelmstrasse, he was a true hero.

But now E. S. Hoofien was scribbling notes nervously. The bespectacled man had enjoyed barely a few days rest in a Czech border hotel upon completion of his crosscontinental jaunts. [2] He had worked so hard to achieve something of historic value, something he could be proud of, a redemption and foundation both. Deeply motivated, he saw the work as a Zionist's task, not a banker's task. He knew he had the blessing of the leadership. But now he was being called to defend himself before hostile questioners. Laying responsibility for the Transfer Agreement on the shoulders of Mr. Sam Cohen was not sufficient. Everyone by now knew the Anglo-Palestine Bank was involved. So E. S. Hoofien, it seemed, would have to intercept the blame. This he did not want to do.

The Political Committee was to convene at 5:00 P.M. that day. Hoofien would be the main witness. As fast as possible, he began outlining notes on a short stack of Grand Hotel Steiner stationery, each sheet crested with the hotel's coat of arms. "First of all, it is necessary to remove a false impression which perhaps exists here and there," Hoofien wrote, "as if I or the Bank, without being authorized, only out of a misconceived zeal, have intruded into a political adventure" -- he scratched out the word "adventure" and wrote in "undertaking" -- " ... have intruded into a political undertaking from which you, those who understand things better, are now obligated to liberate yourselves. [3]

"When the late Arlosoroff learned of Hanotaiah's negotiations, he cabled to that company that they had no right to let this agreement remain a private one, but that it should be put under national control. This telegram does exist and I have seen it." [4]

Hoofien clearly specified that the Executive was in charge, not the Anglo- Palestine Bank or E. S. Hoofien. "Dr. Senator [of the Jewish Agency Executive] was present at Mr. Sam Cohen's talks with the Ministry of Economics. Our [bank's] office in Palestine informed the [London] Executive by letter about this matter as soon as we became involved. It is the ZVfD which demands this agreement and our participation. [5]

"The Conference of Institutions ... in which all authoritative institutions of the Yishuv [Palestinian Jewry] are represented, also explicitly demanded our intervention .... " Hoofien explained why the Transfer Agreement was imperative. The Third Reich was pauperizing all of German Jewry. The only way to stop this was economic intervention wherein Zionism could claim the right to salvage some of the assets via merchandise. "Our rationale is as follows: we, i.e. the Palestinian economy, cannot renounce our claims on Germany. We cannot afford the luxury of rejecting merchandise for which our economy does not incur any debit and which in effect constitutes merely the settlement of a just debt. To reject the merchandise would be tantamount to making a present to Germany [of the Jewish assets]. And that is what the opponents want the Yishuv to do. But the Yishuv has acquired its economic thinking in the school of hard knocks and it will accept the goods." [6]

Continuing his defenses, Hoofien wrote, "The counterargument makes use ... of the sentimental issue, namely that with today's Germany one cannot enter into understandings or even negotiations. The Yishuv skips this argument because it knows that it cannot cash a debt from a debtor without speaking with him and without settling the matter. Even in the resolutions adopted [by the Congress] about an organized emigration, negotiations and agreements with the German government are needed -- you have yourselves skipped this argument. [7]

"The opponents cannot say either, as I have heard during talks and discussions, that the thing should be done, but by no means by an official body. The Yishuv has no understanding of such a cowardly" -- Hoofien stopped, crossed out the word "cowardly" and replaced it with "evasion" -- " ... has no understanding for such an evasion. If it suits Jewish interest that Palestine cashes its debts from Germany, and if it suits Jewish dignity that negotiations are being led, ... then it is the right and obligation of the Yishuv's main economic institutions to handle this matter .... If it does not suit the Jewish interest and pride, then nobody should do it." [8]

Broaching the question of the worldwide outrage, Hoofien wrote, "If the Jewish masses are upset -- which is justified -- and oppose seeing clearly the importance of the matter for the Yishuv, then the duty of the people's leaders is to instruct and enlighten the people, ... not give in cowardly ... and sacrifice the interests of Palestine's construction to public opinion. [9]

"The second argument. . . is that this agreement breaks the boycott .... Notwithstanding the fact that the boycott has not been formally declared as part of the Zionist Organization's political program, and without analyzing here the question of whether the boycott is a right or wrong weapon, ... it must be stressed explicitly once more that the whole argument is wrong and based on erratic reasoning. Boycott makes sense if [transferred assets] are realized by something other than purchased goods. But when the merchandise has no other equivalent, and in fact represents the compensation for our claims, then boycott is pure insanity." [10]

Hoofien continued writing defenses, rationales, and elucidations. His point of view focused totally on the necessity of saving Jewish assets. If the anti-Nazi boycott were successful, he believed, German Jews would be pauperized anyway. Why not convert part of that tragedy into reconstruction in Palestine and thus help avoid future emergencies through the establishment of a Jewish State? To resist this imperative, asserted Hoofien, would create war between Zionists and the Zionist Organization. [11]

"If you want to enter into this absurd conflict with the Yishuv, whereas the whole world-after a quiet future analysis ... -- evaluates how much the Yishuv has been right and how much you have been wrong, so do what you please. Only do not pretend that you have not been warned explicitly and at the proper time. I consider your decision --" There was no time to complete the notes. [12] The Political Committee session was at hand.

Hoofien took his notes into the meeting room. Members of the committee included Meir Grossman, Stephen Wise, Menahem Ussischkin, David Ben- Gurion, and many others. Testifying were E. S. Hoofien, Berl Locker, Dr. Arthur Ruppin, and Mr. Sam Cohen. [13]

Locker began by stating that the Zionist Executive "did not conduct negotiations which led to the conclusion of the Transfer Agreement with Germany. Mr. Sam Cohen, who was in London early in June, showed the Executive a letter ... from the German Ministry of Economics, which resulted from negotiations conducted by Mr. Cohen on behalf of Hanotaiah. The German government intimated in that letter its readiness to allow Jews emigrating to Palestine to take with them RM 15,000 in cash and RM 10,000 in goods produced in Germany. The agreement provided for a total of RM 1 million, and the German Ministry was prepared to extend the agreement at a later stage. It was then contemplated to form a Liquidation Bank .... During those conversations with Mr. Cohen, it was thought that it would be better if his agreement were not confined to Hanotaiah, but embraced other organizations as well. The Executive was in no way in charge of negotiations." [14]

The next witness was E. S. Hoofien. In front of him were his notes detailing full complicity by the Zionist Executive. But Locker has just asserted that the Executive was totally uninvolved, that the whole matter was Sam Cohen's doing. If Hoofien read from those nine pages of stationery, he would utterly discredit Locker, Mapai, and the entire Executive, and probably kill the Transfer Agreement.

So instead of reading from the front of the stationery, Hoofien read from the reverse sides which bore little more than his handwritten chronology of events. "On May 19," Hoofien began, "the German Ministry of Economics addressed a communication to Mr. Sam Cohen, putting forward the proposals to which Mr. Locker has already referred." Opposition then arose to Hanotaiah acquiring a monopoly. In July, he [Hoofien] conferred with Dr. Landauer in Berlin and suggested that the Anglo-Palestine Bank was really "not anxious" to be involved in Cohen's agreement. A Conference of Institutions was then formed in Palestine, recalled Hoofien, reading his chronology almost line by line. They urged that "the Transfer Agreement be taken in hand." [15]

Hoofien recalled the August 7 Wilhelmstrasse meeting and his subsequent efforts to complete all the procedural details. He admitted that the Anglo-Palestine Bank did help create the Berlin trust company that would serve as the Liquidation Bank. But Anglo-Palestine's only function, he argued, would be holding German merchandise sale proceeds until German Jews arrived in Eretz Yisrael to be reimbursed. The motive was to collect in an organized fashion the money belonging to emigrating German Jews. And, he said, the negotiators were guided throughout by the Conference of Institutions. [16] Hoofien had avoided implicating the Zionist Executive by identifying the Conference of Institutions as the source of his authority. Locker's story stood unchallenged.

Then Dr. Ruppin testified. He argued that without some agreement with the Reich, organized emigration would be impossible. Nothing in the agreement violated the boycott because no new currency would come to Germany as a result of the transactions. Dr. Ruppin did not explain that after the first 3 million reichmarks were transferred, all other merchandise transfers would involve at least partial payments in foreign currency. Nor did he discuss the numerous associated commercial enterprises that were being organized partly on transfer assets and partly on foreign currency. [17]

Question: Was it still possible to abolish the Transfer Agreement? Ruppin said it was indeed possible, but such an act would be utterly irreconcilable with the interests of Zionism, Palestine, and German Jewry. [18]

Final testimony was rendered by Mr. Sam Cohen, whose comments were brief. He basically reiterated the assertions of Hoofien and Ruppin, adding that the original currency exemption allowed emigrants bound for Palestine to take the necessary £1000, but the details were "not settled. That concession could easily be withdrawn." By negotiating the Transfer Agreement, the currency exemption was totally stabilized. Proof that it was not advantageous to Germany, said Cohen, was the fact that Reich currency authorities opposed much of the plan because it failed to provide Germany with foreign currency. [19]

Numerous questions were asked by the Political Committee members. Hoofien provided most of the answers. Would the Transfer Agreement allow Germany to dump goods on the Palestinian market, thus destroying locally manufactured wares? Not really. Would the Transfer Agreement increase employment opportunities for German workers? Obviously yes, but not all that much. Did German officials act in a hostile, denigrating manner? No, generally, and besides, the agreement was good from the Jewish point of view. How many families could really emigrate with part of their assets in the near future? Probably about 2,000 families. About 650 individuals had already emigrated ... [and] brought with them £650,000 {more than $3 million]. [20]

At one point Menahem Ussischkin, chief of the Jewish National Fund, started criticizing the Transfer Agreement and the Anglo-Palestine Bank's role in it. As a founding father of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, Ussischkin's comments were taken seriously. Putting aside the moral questions, Ussischkin asked, how could a bank involve itself in anything as controversial as this? A gentleman sitting next to Hoffien scrawled a note to Hoofien: "Uss. definitely wants you to get out of it -- don't be mistaken about it. He only gives you a proper motive for doing it." Hoofien nonetheless cited the bank's political obligations. At this, the gentleman next to Hoofien slipped him another note: "You have put the case of the A.P.B. very well but ... a bank runs away from anything political. ... They don't know what the depositors will do." [21]

Questions continued. There were so many complicated facets to the Transfer Agreement: moral, financial, practical. What would the British say, their trade interests in Palestine having been severely diluted? How should Zionist leaders answer angry Jewish critics? Just how badly would the Transfer Agreement hurt the anti-Nazi boycott? Was it Zionism's destiny to work with anti-Semites as Herzl had commanded? Or was Zionism's larger obligation to fight the persecution of Jews? The rationales and criticisms went back and forth. Was it better to fight Hitler, or concede the battle and convert Nazi persecution into a salvation for the Jewish people? All the known arguments were posed and counterposed, considered and reconsidered. [22]

When the Political Committee meeting was over, most of its members were thoroughly confused. On the surface, it was easy to shout denunciations as though everything was either black or white, but the issues were so monumental, so emotional, and laced with so many imponderables that it became impossible for most members to adopt clear postures of either endorsement or rejection.

Some compared the confrontation with Hitler to the confrontation with the Egyptian pharoah. Then, too, it was a question of freeing a stubborn and reluctant people from captivity, freeing them with their cattle and goats and possessions. Was Moses to refrain from negotiating with the pharoah? If he had, the Jews would have never made an exodus to Israel with possessions needed to establish themselves. Hitler was the new pharoah, pro-Transfer people argued. The German Jews were the descendants of the slaves reluctant to depart. As in pharaoh's day, without negotiation, there would be no freedom, no Israel.

With all their biblical schooling, however, these well-meaning men forgot that Moses would not compromise and that freedom for the children of Israel was secured not by prizes but by plagues.

***

The moderates who emerged from the August 29 Political Committee session were still undecided about the Transfer Agreement, but the extremes of Zionism -- Mapai and Revisionism -- had only reinforced their earlier attitudes. Mapai still saw transfer as the beginning of national actuation. Revisionists more than ever saw transfer as a betrayal the Zionist movement was duty bound to rescind. Now that representatives of all parties had heard Political Committee testimony about at least the superficial aspects of the agreement, the Revisionists believed they could appeal to the delegates for a resolution of nullification. As expected, the only way Mapai could block this was by intensifying their allegations that the Revisionists killed Arlosoroff.

Grossman's interpellation called for the Political Committee to make a report at the Tuesday night session or the final session on Wednesday morning, August 30. But the committee needed far more time. Mapai's forces also needed more time to lobby for a resolution indicting the Revisionists for Arlosoroff's murder. Furthermore, routine Congress business had not yet been completed because of all the delays. Congress leaders were forced to extend the convention until September 3. [23]

After the Political Committee adjourned, its members went directly to the main hall for more floor debate. At 9:15 P.M. the general session was called to order by Motzkin. The frustration expressed by the initial speakers reflected just how rankled the delegates were becoming and how impatient they were for a united stand. One eloquent Austrian General Zionist, Oskar Gruenbaum, blamed both the Revisionists and Mapai. "I keep imagining a picture. We are all fighting on ice and the ice breaks and we don't realize that we are drowning. If we continue with a policy like this, then the waves will drown us and you will share the guilt that Jewry loses its last chance -- Zionism." [24]

The next speaker was a Polish Mapai delegate who reflected rank-and-file Mapai disillusionment with their own party's response to Hitler. "We are overlooking the big picture for the details. The big national disaster, the German tragedy, this we exploit for money collections and colonization. But this is not enough. The whole Jewish world in Europe is psychologically ready for an emigration. What are we doing to organize this movement? . . . One thousand to two thousand certificates in view of the agony of six hundred thousand Jews is a terrible shame." [25]

Later, Berl Katznelson, one of Mapai's central figures, stepped to the dais. His goal was to marshal delegate frustration against Revisionism and undo the losses suffered earlier when Stephen Wise battered the entire Mapai position from his ostensibly neutral General Zionist corner. So Katznelson's speech fired first at Wise. "Dr. Wise is a prominent personality and his voice ... is heard all over the world. But when this voice is used ... to spread false concepts, then this is very dangerous." Attacking Wise for being a labor crusader in America but anti-Labor while in Prague, Katznelson declared, "There are Jews, Zionists, who are very radical. They get excited about liberty, progress, labor rights, and democracy. But all their radicalism and their progressive concepts they confine to the non-Jewish world. When they come to us, they forget the basic concept of organized labor and social rights. In regard to America, Dr. Wise is a very progressive man." Katznelson then turned to the Revisionists and cried, "In America, it would be impossible that Dr. Wise become the speaker of [fascist] black forces. [26]

"Here it is possible. Here people, who in regard to the world in general can be called almost socialist, here they can operate even with ... the Revisionists. While here, he [Wise] has chosen to associate himself with those who are helping to create an atmosphere similar to Hitler's." [27]

Addressing delegates critical of Mapai's lackluster reaction to the German crisis, Katznelson cried, "It is not our fault that we did not come to the Congress with proposals. Zionism fell into a terrible disaster. Our movement is purely a movement of liberty. Now that it has been stained with blood, we cannot proceed with constructive labors .... If you had read ... [news of the Arlosoroff murder] in the press of Eretz Yisrael ... which arrived here today, then you would understand this Congress cannot do anything, until it has been freed from this disgrace." [28]

Revisionist hecklers shouted out, "Then why did you convene the Congress?" Katznelson shot back, "That's why we convened it. You thought you could play a double game. You act like you don't know anything [about the Arlosoroff murder], but others came and revealed it." [29]

At this point, Grossman, seeking to remind the audience about the Transfer Agreement, yelled in Yiddish, "How does it go with your business?" The word business was uttered by Grossman not in Yiddish, but in English with a hostile inflection. [30]

Katznelson, hearing this, attacked Grossman for insisting on interpellations about the Transfer Agreement while refusing to discuss the Arlosoroff issue. "I admire the equanimity of Grossman," Katznelson said sarcastically. "He's got time and he can remain in silence [on Arlosoroff]. But there are things which don't let him rest [such as the Transfer Agreement], and which he demands should be dealt with immediately at the Congress. This he demands, when the matter can be brought forward to the press. But he, the man of the Democratic Revisionists, remains silent when every day things are published [about the Arlosoroff case] which bring only shame ... to our movement." Hitting hard with the murder accusation, Katznelson cried, "Only one of us has been slaughtered so far. Nobody can guarantee that tomorrow a second will not fall. ... Therefore the first business of the Congress is to liberate Zionism from this right now!" Like Grossman, Katznelson broke from Yiddish to speak the word "business" in English and with an equally if not more demonstratively hostile tone. [31]

This is how it went. Hour after hour, night after night. The crisis in Germany was omitted from the agenda. The menace of Hitlerism was bypassed. The Nazis must have been smiling.

***

By Wednesday morning, August 30, Political Committee members had slept a night on the subject of the Transfer Agreement. Some convinced members became uncertain; some uncertain ones became convinced. Hence, there was still no unanimity when the Political Committee convened its second meeting that morning.

The session opened with a background talk by Professor Selig Brodetsky, who had been deeply involved in the transfer negotiations. He explained how the Zionist Organization had taken decisive steps early on in response to the rise of Hitler. Information was obtained through British government channels, and Neville Laski of the Board of Deputies and Leonard Montefiore of the Anglo-Jewish Association were influenced to avoid an "open struggle against the Third Reich." This was done to keep the lines of communication open between the Zionist Organization and Berlin. The Transfer Agreement had obviously created great dissatisfaction throughout the Jewish world, Brodetsky conceded, but he insisted the agreement was needed if German Jewish emigration was to be organized. [32]

Professor Brodetsky's comments, however, gave Stephen Wise no satisfaction. Wise demanded to know how Nazi propagandists could be prevented from seizing upon the Transfer Agreement to discredit the entire anti-Hitler boycott movement. Brodetsky could not provide a sensible answer. [33]

Mindful of Untermyer's ultimatum that the Congress either disown the Transfer Agreement or suffer the recall of the American delegation, Wise laid down an ultimatum of his own. Either the Political Committee clarify how the Transfer Agreement was not a gross breach of the boycott, or Wise would issue a statement on behalf of the entire American delegation condemning the agreement. Such a move would almost certainly trigger the recall Untermyer had promised. Transfer advocates heatedly protested, but Wise insisted he would take public action unless the committee did as he demanded. [34]

Recriminations and threats continued throughout the day as the Political Committee struggled to resolve the transfer controversy. [35] No progress was made, but by meeting's end it had become clear that Mapai's grasp on the Congress -- when it came to the transfer question -- was indeed weakening. There was now the clear possibility that the unpredictable Congress delegates could be swayed against the agreement. To that end, the Revisionists began planning a minority resolution calling upon the full Congress to repudiate the Transfer Agreement and forbid any future pacts with Germany.

True, the Revisionists' earlier minority boycott resolution had been a total failure, but during that fight, they'd had Stephen Wise working against them. The Revisionists could now count on a dismayed and angry public and the support of Stephen Wise to give their resolution at least a chance.

The Wednesday August 30 Political Committee adjourned just in time for the members to reach the main hall to attend the last session of open debate. The Revisionists were ready to make transfer the big issue. No Revisionists were scheduled to speak that night, but when Berl Locker came to the dais, the Revisionists were ready.

Locker was trying to improve Mapai's image of being too preoccupied with factional feuding to have responded properly to the Hitler crisis. Therefore, much of his speech was devoted to a compassionate reading of the German Jewish tragedy and Mapai's reaction to it. "I know that immediately, when the first news about events in Germany arrived," Locker said in a dramatic voice, "every Zionist and also every Jew asked himself how is it possible to get out as many Jews as possible from Germany and how can they be brought to Eretz Yisrael." At this, the Revisionists in the audience burst into conspicuous laughter, with several shouting, "Through an agreement!" [36]

Instantly, Locker stopped to answer the hecklers, declaring, "If I am not wrong, and I am sure that I am not, two days before the murder of Arlosoroff, an article appeared against Arlosoroff because of his position on the question of German Jewry, and in the same paper Jabotinsky wrote that it is possible [for the Revisionists] to come to an agreement with Hitler." [37]

"False quotations! False quotations!" shouted Jabotinsky's supporters.

"False quotations?" Locker answered. "It won't help you anything if you call these quotations false. I assure you, such things were written." Believing the interference to be over, Locker proceeded with his address. But the Revisionists continued to heckle, shouting out "certificates," in castigation of Mapai's decision to force an immigration certificate priority for their own halutzim even over the German Jews themselves. Locker continued, "I can only say to the people that call out the word 'certificate,' that you have a comfortable point of view [not being responsible for quota negotiations with the British as Mapai people were]. When we succeed in obtaining a big number of certificates, then you like it. But when the government only gives us a few, then who is guilty -- the Zionist Executive, Weizmann and Mapai?" Revisionist hecklers answered the question: "The [socialist] internationale!" [38]

The scorn and skirmishing continued until late that evening. Once again, nothing was accomplished. But just as Mapai had been able to block the Revisionists from rallying the delegates to oppose the Transfer Agreement, so had the Revisionists been successful in preventing a successful purge of their party from the Zionist structure.

Mapai understood that it was losing its war to destroy the Revisionists. Just after the session adjourned, Mapai leaders convened an all-night emergency session of the Actions Committee to plan their strategy for ultimate victory. [39] The big push would come the next day.

[admin]

38. Hatikva

THROUGHOUT the Congress, a special Commission on Palestinian Terrorism was the scene of venomous attempts by Mapai to link the entire Revisionist party to the assassination of Arlosoroff. The Revisionists, as minority members of the commission, had blocked any unanimous recommendations to the Congress as a whole. But Mapai had finally succeeded in scheduling a special session exclusively devoted to the question of violence. That session was Thursday, August 31. The expected climax had attracted hundreds of additional spectators and journalists who jammed the delegate benches and visitor galleries. Squads of Prague policemen were stationed throughout the hall in anticipation of fighting. [1]

Mapai's majority resolution was virtually an enabling act permitting Mapai to indict and expel Revisionism. The resolution instructed the Actions Committee to convene after the Congress adjourned and the delegates left Prague. A special panel would be established to conduct an investigation in Palestine. The Actions Committee was then empowered "in the most effective manner . . . to remove from the Zionist Organization those elements which are responsible [for violence]." [2]

Chairman Motzkin read the resolution to the delegates, adding that there would be no discussion. Jabotinsky jumped to his feet demanding a .debate with speeches limited to three minutes. He promised that the Revisionists would be courteous and careful. Motzkin asked if Jabotinsky would agree to the presidium reviewing his statement in advance and censoring any comments they did not approve. "Never," he shouted. "We don't accept censorship!" He pleaded with the delegates not to "tolerate a procedure which makes caricatures" of Zionist democracy. But unable to do better, Jabotinsky finally agreed to read an edited declaration that welcomed an investigation, so long as it also probed the class warfare of Mapai that he said created such crises. [3]

Several futile, angry Revisionist delays followed, but when it was over, 179 over 62 voted to establish the investigative panel. When the Revisionists tried to offer their own minority resolution, it was ruled out of order. Jabotin sky desperately pleaded to come to the dais and make a statement of defense as a Jew speaking to other Jews. He was denied. "Justice is dead!" the Revisionists screamed. "Lie! Lie!" others shouted. "Judicial murder!" they wailed. A fracas ensued. The door to exile had been opened. The Revisionists would exit through it, but only fighting. Chaos continued for fifteen minutes, but that did not change the vote. [4]

***

During the last week of August, the Reich continued its propaganda war, releasing more leaks about negotiations between Germany and Zionism. The Zionist hierarchy stuck by their defense: The Transfer Agreement was nothing more than a private deal engineered by a private citizen named Sam Cohen and supervised by a private financial institution, the Anglo-Palestine Bank. This story sufficed for a few days as international Jewish furor became diluted by the continuing confusion. Moreover, the more spectacular orange deal disclosures were so impossible to verify that many dismissed it as just another Nazi fabrication designed to divide Jewish solidarity. [5]

But on August 31, the Reich inflamed the entire subject again by leaking to the Berlin press the complete text of the Transfer Agreement--decree 54/33, dated August 28, 1933. In sterile bureaucratic language, the published text clearly explained to the world that the ZVtD was officially involved and that Palestine had been given an exclusive Jewish assets transfer privilege. [6] The ZVtD, under the circumstances, was forced to confirm the Reich decree. So newspapers in Europe and America reported that the Transfer Agreement between official Zionist institutions and the Third Reich was now corroborated. [7] As if deliberately to mix the orange deal and the Transfer Agreement in the public mind, that same August 31 the Fruit Department of the Landhandelsbund announced that the Jaffa orange pact was now sealed following negotiations with two major Palestinian cooperatives under the aegis of George Halperin, an official of the Anglo-Palestine Bank. [8]

All the subdued rage was rekindled. Jews throughout the world unleashed a barrage of protest. The Warsaw Jewish Community sent Prague an immediate condemnation. The Jewish War Veterans in New York wired to Chairman Motzkin notice of JWV resolutions denouncing the Transfer Agreement, the orange deal, and any other negotiations between Zionism and Hitler's Germany. [9] London's Jewish Chronicle, reflecting Anglo-Jewry's shock and disbelief, actually reprinted the text of the Transfer Agreement as a joke with the following preface: "And what a decree! The first section is headed 'Transfer of Property to Palestine' ... and it must be read in full for its rich humour to be appreciated." [10] Unfortunately, it was no joke. Every word released in the Berlin papers and reprinted in the Jewish Chronicle corresponded to the actual text of decree 54/33. By September 2, in the shadow of the latest disclosures, even some of the staunchest transfer advocates in Prague were changing their minds.

The only group available to lead any antitransfer crusade, however, was the discredited Revisionists. The Revisionists knew that while they were indeed voted persona non grata, they retained immense popular Jewish support on the question of resisting deals with Germany. The Eighteenth Zionist Congress would disband the next night, September 3. Within hours of the final session, many delegates would have to rush to Geneva in time for Stephen Wise's Second World Jewish Conference. However, there was now such widespread hostility to the reported deals with Germany, there was indeed a strong possibility that in the final hour of the final session a Revisionist-led minority resolution rescinding the Transfer Agreement could be voted through. The likelihood of that actually happening would be forecast at the upcoming Political Committee meeting, where final party positions on the transfer would be outlined.

The Political Committee was called to order at eight-thirty that evening, September 2. Transfer opponents were not disappointed. Dr. Israel Waldmann of the Radical Zionists said that his party had concluded the agreement was "dangerous" and had to be rescinded. But the Radicals insisted rescission be handled in a way that would not disgrace the Zionist movement. "In view of all the complications," Waldmann said, "we would be satisfied if [a secret] internal resolution were passed asking the Actions Committee at its next meeting to instruct the Anglo-Palestine Bank to withdraw from the agreement." Meir Grossman countered, "We will insist on an open resolution at the Congress against the agreement, and disavowing ... negotiations with the German government." [11]

Mapai members of the committee staunchly defended the transfer. They maintained that the boycott, even the German crisis itself, was secondary to the needs of Palestine. Palestine represented a historic obligation. The boycott and the German crisis were transient. Berl Katznelson summed up this way: "We must save Jews of Germany, and their property, and arrange their transfer to Palestine. Therefore, all the discussion and excitement about the Transfer Agreement is misplaced. The anti-Hitler boycott is a means to a goal -- not a goal in itself." [12]

Rabbi Cziransky, from Poland, supported Grossman's view: "In addition to thinking of German Jewry, we must also consider Jews in other countries, where Hitlerism may develop. Therefore, the Transfer Agreement and the negotiations with the present German government must be condemned by the Congress in the strongest possible manner. Polish and world Jewry will regard this as a national betrayal!" [13]

Stephen Wise declared that world opinion was absolutely hostile to the agreement and adamantly for the boycott, and this could not be disregarded. He absolutely rejected Mapai's position that the need to settle Palestine took precedence over every other facet of Jewish life, including the boycott. Wise warned that this was only the beginning: "We have opened the door." The Agreement would be "followed up by all kinds of filth, and advantage will be taken of the abmachung [deal]." It would divide the very integrity of the anti- Hitler "Jewish front." Wise insisted the Congress pass a "definite and unequivocal resolution against the Agreement." [14]

Hoofien answered the critics, especially those who blamed Anglo-Palestine. He emphatically denied that the bank or manager George Halperin were even indirectly involved with the orange deal. As for the Transfer Agreement, "It is not true that the bank negotiated with the German government on its own account. The initiative was taken by representatives of German Zionism and various Palestinian interests. The bank did not wish to be involved in a political issue." But ultimately, Hoofien conceded, he was willing to get out, if only someone could get him out without embarrassing condemnations. "If the proper organ did decide against the Agreement," Hoofien said, "the bank would certainly withdraw, but it would be inadvisable to refer to the bank in any resolutions put to Congress." [15]

Dr. Ruppin protested, "If the Congress does revoke the agreement, it will be assuming a very heavy responsibility; it will endanger the existence of many German Jews. The Transfer Agreement in no way interferes with the boycott movement, since no new currency will flow into Germany as a result of the agreement .... Abolition ... would also endanger the existence of the Zionist institutions in Germany, as well as facilities for emigration from Germany." Everything would be lost, he tried to explain. [16]

The tide suddenly turned when Ruppin dropped the cover story they had all been maintaining that kept the Zionist Executive out of the picture, and thereby avoided the question of Congress approval. He finally admitted it: "The negotiations were conducted with the knowledge of the Executive. Senator was fully aware of all that had been done." This disclosure now placed the agreement squarely within the authority of the Congress. [17]

Then came Professor Selig Brodetsky's turn. Brodetsky, the transfer liaison in London, was finally prepared to make a difficult statement. He tried to re-create how the best of motives had been in all their hearts as the Zionist movement was torn between the instinct to fight Hitler and the need to negotiate. "Many people [in April 1933] were anxious to involve the Zionist Organization in the boycott movement," he recalled. "But all parties held different opinions as to the advisability of the boycott. If direct negotiations could be entered into with the German government with regard to the position of German Jews, very few people would object." [18]

Brodetsky then explained how the Zionist Executive had been overtaken by events. "When Mr. Cohen visited London in May, the draft agreement was nearly completed, and the question was not whether he should or should not go on, but whether it should remain an agreement with a private plantation organization, or whether wider interests should be included." He then admitted, "The responsibility of the Executive was therefore somewhat different from that which could be implied from our earlier speeches. [19]

"[We] had to face the dilemma as to whether it was more important to enable more Jews to leave Germany with some of their property for Palestine, or whether on balance the agreement should be revoked in view of its conflict with the boycott movement." And then he said it: "On the whole, it would be best if the bank would withdraw from the agreement." [20]

Meir Grossman, having heard Brodetsky's solemn words, declared the Revisionists would move that the Congress adopt an explicit resolution of nullification. He and Stephen Wise presented the text: "As long as the Jews of Germany have not received their former legal rights again, and as long as the German government does not ... enable Jews the right of free emigration including taking all their property, the Zionist Congress considers it inadmissible that . . . the Zionist Organization or its subordinate institutions [such as the Anglo-Palestine Bank] sign any agreement of any kind with the present German government." [21] The resolution drafted by Grossman and Wise incorporated the quintessential strategy of Moses: "Let my people go, with all their possessions, and the plagues shall not stop until you do."

But Mapai's top echelon stiffened. Mapai political leader Moshe Shertok (Sharett), who later became Israel's foreign minister, decried the entire conversation. "It has been suggested that negotiations were conducted with the consent of the Executive. This is not true," rebutted Shertok. "The Jerusalem Executive certainly never considered the question, and it was officially informed only on the very eve of the close of the agreement." He deplored even the suggestion of a conflict between the interests of Palestine and the Diaspora. Shertok declared that if the agreement could in fact facilitate the transfer of German Jewish property to Palestine, and enable Jews to settle in Eretz Yisrael, then it could not be interfered with. [22]

A Mapai resolution was set forth: "The Congress refers to the Actions Committee for careful examination the question of the Agreement with the German government for the transfer of Jewish capital to Palestine, with an instruction that nothing shall be done . . . contrary to the attitude of the Congress on the German Jewish question." [23] The "attitude of the Congress" was the majority resolution passed the night of August 24 that declared Zionism and emigration to Palestine as the appropriate reaction to the Hitler regime.

With Stephen Wise and Brodetsky against the transfer, a large sector of the General Zionists were now ready to renounce the agreement. The Radical Zionists were on record as desiring the agreement's abolition if it could be done discreetly. The Revisionist and Mizrachi antagonism toward the agreement was well known. And even such notables as Leo Motzkin had finally decided the agreement was bad. In fact, Motzkin was now determined to attend Wise's boycott conference in Geneva as soon as the Prague Congress ended. [24]

Mapai knew they were becoming isolated on the issue. The Transfer Agreement could indeed be repudiated the next day at the final Congress session. In the absence of a Transfer Agreement, there could only be boycott, and boycott meant the return of Revisionism. It could not be allowed.

Mapai had one more resolution they could wield. It was introduced that Saturday night, September 2, at the 9:00 P.M. general session. The new resolution stated that as part of Zionist discipline, no individual or group within the Zionist Organization would be permitted to conduct foreign policy, contact foreign governments or the League of Nations, or engage in any activities of a political nature that infringed on the prerogatives of the Zionist Executive. This outlawed all forms of anti-Nazi protest, including campaigning against the Transfer Agreement. Under the resolution, all those who broke the discipline provisions would be suspended and tried by a special tribunal. Upon a guilty verdict, the tribunal would be empowered to expel the person or party from the Zionist Organization. [25]

The delegates reacted to Mapai's discipline resolution with a storm of outrage. Members of all other parties filled the hall with loud protests and accusatory declarations. The battle raged for hours as the Revisionists and others tried to prevent a vote. But Mapai held on with their 44 percent and with a few allies in other parties.

At some weary moment during the night, Mapai called for a vote. Some said it was 3:00 A.M. Some said it was after dawn. The delegates had been without sleep, they were hungry, they were worn out. No one could tell how many delegates even knew the vote was being taken. Mapai's discipline resolution was carried. Out of 300 delegates, 152 voted for the resolution, 13 against. [26] Mapai won.

***

On September 3, 1933, at 4:30 P.M., the final session of the Eighteenth Zionist Congress began for 300 delegates plus alternates, disputed representatives, special participants, and observers. They had train and boat tickets in their pockets, too much bloodshot in their eyes, and precious little patience in their dispositions. Many came from Zionist strongholds in the United States, Poland, and France. But many also came from remote Zionist enclaves in Chile, Yemen, and Hong Kong. In the hall, the delegates spoke twenty or thirty different languages, often all at once. Even the official proceedings were conducted in at least three languages. The delegates had varying levels of sophistication. Some were true believers. Some were skeptics. Some demanded to lead. Some wanted only to follow. But whether dark-skinned or fair, Asian or European, powerful or inconspicuous, they all had one thing in common. Each had one vote.

On this last day, all the untied strings had to be knotted. The Congress was more than a forum for debate about the Hitler crisis. Russian anti-Semitism, immigration certificates for Yemenites, land prices in Palestine, dialogue with Arab leaders, training facilities for halutzim, agricultural experiments on kibbutzim, loan agreements with London banks, reorganization of the Jewish Agency, relations with non-Zionists, the Palestinian school system, Sabbath enforcement -- there were a hundred pressing emergencies. Most delegates concerned themselves with one or two or five or six of the emergencies, and merely voted in blocs on other issues.

On this last day, the many special commissions and committees that had been deliberating for days on each and every pressing issue would finally present their recommendations to the plenum. The custom was for these voluminous resolutions to be read in rapid succession for lightning votes designed to get the overworked, overspent delegates out of the hall and back to wherever was home.

As in other years, the various commission, committee, and subcommittee chairmen read their long, complicated resolutions on everything from budget allocations to religious questions. With record impatience, the delegates ayed and ayed, sending resolution after resolution into the statute books. However, even the debate-battered Zionist delegates in their last hours could not help but withhold their vote and demand discussion when strange and unexpected resolutions began appearing. The first unexpected resolution was a subtle change in the Zionist Organization's constitution that permitted the Actions Committee to convene subsequent congresses at three-year intervals instead of biannually. The assembly argued this radical change long and hard, but in the end Mapai's votes carried the resolution. [27]

The next resolution of importance addressed the question of Dr. Weizmann. For days, Mapai had been trying to convince him to return to the presidency of the Zionist Organization. Weizmann had rebuffed all pleas because Mapai had failed to expel the Revisionists. Finally, Weizmann sent word -- without actually visiting the Congress hall -- that he would not accept the presidency, but would chair a new London-based entity to be known as the Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews. The Bureau would coordinate all relief, emigration, and political issues affecting German Jewry, including Haavara. In Palestine, a sister entity called the German Department would be headed by Dr. Ruppin. [28]

In essence, Weizmann no longer needed the helm of the Zionist Organization to guide the destiny of the Jewish national effort. That destiny now reposed within the borders of the Third Reich, and within the numbered accounts of the Liquidation Bank, Paltreu, and Haavara. Since Weizmann's bureau would operate semi-autonomously in tandem with the Zionist Executive, Weizmann and Mapai could make their own decisions without factional obstruction. In Weizmann's view, the Zionist Organization, with all its parties and points of view and cumbersome committees, was too inefficient for the task at hand. A state was to be built while flames were all around.

The resolution creating the new bureau was passed. [29] Most of the delegates voting had no way of knowing they were creating an elite entity that during the next fifteen years would make virtually all the life-or-death rescue decisions for German Jewry.

As had been proven on the back of the Revisionists, it did not pay to oppose Mapai. But on the resolution regarding the Transfer Agreement, the Revisionists were hoping the delegates would rise up and vote their consciences. The press, the letters and telegrams, the phone calls, the late-night clashes, the quiet, introspective personal moments of regret that most delegates had felt would almost certainly compel them to vote to rescind. On the other hand, Mapai looked upon the Transfer Agreement as the cornerstone of everything to come: the buyer of land, the builder of schools, the sponsor of halutzim, the redeemer of the Jewish future. Weizmann's bureau, the priority for halutzim, the unrivaled domination of Mapai -- all of it was contingent on the next vote.

Mapai had already been busy making private assurances to delegates about the meaning of their resolution: Yes, there were major problems with the agreement and its conflict with the boycott. Those who had engineered the agreement had even expressed a willingness to scrap it, but a humiliating floor rejection was not the way. At the very next meeting of the Actions Committee, the entire program would either be brought into harmony with the boycott or be rescinded as the public wanted. These were the impressions held by a great number of delegates, including some of the most influential, such as American delegation co-leader Louis Lipsky, a close associate of Weizmann, who had just been appointed to the Zionist Executive. [30]

Political Committee chairman Michael Ringel read the majority resolution paragraph requiring the "Congress to turn over the question of the interpellation of August 24 to the Actions Committee with the instruction that nothing shall be done ... contrary to the attitude of the Congress on the German Jewish question." [31]

Then it was Meir Grossman's turn: "I am proposing the following minority resolution: ~s long as the Jews in Germany have not received their former legal rights again, and as long as the German government does not ... enable Jews the right of free emigration taking all their property, the Zionist Congress considers it inadmissable that the Executive of the Zionist Organization or its subordinate institutions sign any agreement of any kind with the present German government.'" [32]

Grossman turned to his fellow Jews and told them, "In full conscience of the responsibility and in the interest of the German Jews and not less in the interest of all of world Jewry, we have to be fully aware that we are not allowed in any way to weaken the atmosphere of protest in the Jewish world today. We were told that the Executive had no relations whatsoever to this action. But I rather declare that at least three members of the Zionist Executive knew about this 'action.' Therefore we [the movement] have given this 'action' our national signature and seal, and I consider it a breach of national discipline." [33]

Grossman had turned Mapai's own weapon against them. The Transfer Agreement, maintained Grossman, was the ultimate breach of discipline. His closing words: "It is impossible to leave this Congress without condemning this 'action.' Neither the Executive nor one of the institutions under its guidance has the right to sign an agreement with a government engaged with us in a daily struggle. Our resolution must liberate the Zionist Organization from the damage which has been done to it by this agreement!" [34]

Berl Katznelson, on behalf of Mapai rose to answer: "After the declaration of Mr. Grossman, I am forced to say the following: In the Political Committee this question ,was discussed ... at great length in a number of sessions.... It was the express wish of the committee to avoid if possible a Congress debate on the question. In every parliamentary body it is understood that there are sometimes important foreign-policy issues which have to be treated discreetly, and by persons who are thoroughly familiar with the subject." [35]

Katznelson then charged Grossman himself with a flagrant breach of discipline. "We have seen today how many people who sit in confidential bodies leak news which we explicitly decided was confidential," rebuked Katznelson. "They do it if the matter can be exploited for party affairs.... The majority of the [Political] Committee clearly understood that it is the main task of Zionism and a Zionist duty to negotiate as Jews and as Zionists and to help the Jews in all countries who are forced to emigrate. They have to be supported to save their life and also their property. Therefore negotiations have to be led, even when it involves negotiations ... with hostile factors. This is the way Zionism has been understood since the days of Herzl. [36]

"The idea of a Liquidation Bank is also connected with negotiations and very often with very difficult, bitter circumstances. A short time ago, a decision established [Weizmann's] Central Bureau, which today should be engaged in transferring Jews with their property from Germany to Eretz Yisrael," Katznelson said. "On this resolution, which is also connected with certain negotiations, Grossman voted in favor." [37]

Katznelson ended his appeal declaring, "We don't believe that it is possible to draw a financial agreement into a political debate. Any Zionist body must agree that Eretz Yisrael is the primary thing and it is the primary duty to save Jewish lives and Jewish assets from all dangers to which they are exposed." [38]

A choice lay before the weary delegates. The final session had begun at 4:00 P.M. Sunday. It was now close to dawn on Monday. Many were confused about the details of the issue, but many also seemed to sense that it placed Judaism and Zionism at a crossroads. The Transfer Agreement, the liquidation and transfer of German Jewish assets ... yes -- this would create the State.

So they voted yes. Yes to allowing Zionist leaders to make the painful, complicated decisions in the privacy of caucus rooms and conference chambers. In so doing, many fully understood that their decision was indeed yes for the Transfer Agreement, yes for the road to nationhood, and yes for a decisive historic move to intervene in the continuum of Jewish dispossession and persecution. [39]

In full recognition that Israel was to become a reality, seventy-seven delegates suddenly and solemnly asked that the white banner emblazoned with the light blue Star of David, for decades the symbol of the Zionist movement, be officially designated the national flag. They also moved that "Hatikva," for decades the symbolic hymn of the Zionist movement, be officially designated the national anthem. Both motions were adopted. [40] Now they had a flag, a song, a treasury, and a people. Land was the only element they were missing. That, too, would come through the power of the Transfer Agreement.

A few closing speeches were made, and at about 9:00 A.M., after seventeen hours of debate and soul-searching, the Eighteenth Zionist Congress was adjourned. The delegates walked from the hall singing their national anthem, "Hatikva." In Hebrew it means "hope."

[admin]

Part 7: Decision at Geneva

39. The Second World Jewish Conference

THE LAST POLITICAL ACT of the Eighteenth Zionist Congress was the unison singing of "Hatikva." But the aftertaste of this Congress left many in the movement embittered and confused about the facts. Some believed the Transfer Agreement would be sent to the Actions Committee and quietly revoked. Many believed that the Transfer Agreement was officially condoned as a distasteful but necessary act to save German Jews and their assets for the Jewish national home -- but purely commercial agreements such as the orange deal were explicitly forbidden. Others remained under the impression that the agreement was merely a contract between Sam Cohen, the Anglo-Palestine Bank, and the Third Reich -- with absolutely no official Zionist involvement. And there were those who believed that neither the Transfer Agreement nor the orange deal actually existed. [1]

For instance, shortly after the Congress, the London Jewish Chronicle commented on the two agreements. On the orange deal, the Chronicle reported, "It is now stated definitely that, strictly speaking, no such agreement exists." On the Haavara, the Chronicle reported, "It has been brought about mainly by a private commercial concern in Palestine -- Hanotaiah. The Jewish Agency has stated, in somewhat cryptic language, that it 'does not participate' in any way in ... the agreement. ... Mr. Sam Cohen, who is said to have conducted the negotiations, leaves no doubt as to Zionist cooperation.... We leave it to others to square Mr. Cohen's words with the categorical denials ... recently heard in Prague." [2]

Modern View, St. Louis' Jewish weekly, issued a call to Zionist officials to end the confusion. "A veritable storm of protest from every part of the Jewish world has greeted the report from Berlin [of an orange deal]. ... [It] may be part of a Nazi scheme to discredit the sincerity of the anti-German boycott, [but] it behooves the Zionist [authorities] to issue a frank denial ... [and] quickly." [3]

When a reporter asked Stephen Wise how the agreements could have been approved, he replied, "None of us at the Zionist Congress could be certain of the facts.... I fought against it in the Political Committee. I was defeated by two groups; one consisting of those who denied in the most categorical manner that there was any such pact, and the second ... who took the position that ... to not purchase goods from Germany is no more than assenting to partial expropriation [by the Nazis]." [4]

And Zionist Executive member Louis Lipsky published a front-page statement in The New Palestine, official newspaper of the Zionist Organization of America, declaring, "The specific agreement about which there has been so much discussion in the press has been referred to the next meeting of the Actions Committee. I understand the enterprise is to be abandoned by its initiators." [5] When he wrote those words, Lipsky was unaware that the Actions Committee meeting he mentioned was in fact never held. On the day in question, almost no one showed up; the committee lacked the quorum needed to convene. [6]

But continued German leaks, many of which were published unchallenged in Palestinian newspapers, compelled many to believe that the Transfer Agreement did in fact exist and in some way involved the Zionist Organization officially. This growing group of angry believers continued to demand that the agreement be revoked and the boycott adhered to. Typical was a comment in The Jewish Chronicle: "We cannot overlook the broad and ugly features of the situation .... Half a boycott won't save the German Jews!" [7]

On September 5, 1933, delegates from Jewish communities around the world arrived in Geneva. Many had come directly from Prague. Once in Geneva, among fellow boycotters, these delegates underwent a rapid change of attitude. In the pressure-cooker atmosphere of the Eighteenth Zionist Congress, the word "boycott" was essentially verboten. Anyone even uttering it was immediately put on the defensive. Now in Geneva, the exact opposite was true. Anyone who dared rationalize trading with the enemy was a traitor, and all boycott traitors were to be exposed.

Stephen Wise had promised the world that he would lead an international boycott organized by the established Jewish organizations of Europe and North America. Furthermore, the American Jewish Congress had promised that the structure conceived in Geneva would be placed at the disposal of Samuel Untermyer. With the Third Reich announcing ever more barbarous anti-Semitic measures in spite of the Transfer Agreement, and precious few days before winter to effect the death blow, the Geneva delegates were determined to do what they could not do in Prague: create a worldwide boycott organization and stop the Transfer Agreement.

***

The Second World Jewish Conference would be brief. It was agreed in advance that what was needed was not speeches, but organizing. Whereas the delegates who attended the Amsterdam conference all represented homespun boycott groups, the one-hundred delegates from twenty-four countries assembled on September 5 in Geneva's Salle Centrale did indeed represent a substantial sector of establishment Jewry. The list included: the Committee of Jewish Delegations, Paris; the Central Union of Bulgarian Jews, Sofia; the Federation of Polish Jews, Warsaw; the League of Jewish Women, Geneva; the Board of Deputies of Rumanian Jews, Bucharest; the Yugoslavian Association of Synagogues, Belgrade; the American Jewish Congress, New York City; and Jewish umbrella groups from Copenhagen, Vilna, Geneva, Florence, Warsaw, and Madrid. Attending as Mussolini's personal envoy was Rabbi Angelo Sacerdoti, the chief rabbi of Rome. Even Zionist officials were there, including delegates from the Zionist Federation of Switzerland, Dr. B. Mossinson of the Vaad Leumi, and Leo Motzkin of the Actions Committee. [8] The absence of the British Board of Deputies was especially noted, but Anglo-Jewry was ably represented by the British Federation of Jewish Relief Organizations, the Federation of Synagogues, and the Inter-University Jewish Federation. [9]

At about 8:00 P.M., Rabbi Stephen S. Wise walked onto the stage to a standing ovation and proclaimed the conference officially convened. After telegrams of encouragement from Jewish communities all over the world were read, Wise stepped up to the lectern. This was his moment. [10]

"Ladies and gentlemen .... Jews the world over are agreed that the overshadowing problem throughout Jewish life today is bound up with the situation of the German Jews .... It is no less true, ladies and gentlemen, that the German Jewish problem is itself overshadowed and dominated by one question, which must be answered by the World Jewish Congress .... That question is: Shall there be a world boycott of all ... products manufactured in Germany?" [11]

The crowd erupted in loud applause. Then, without mentioning the Zionist Organization by name, Wise broadened his question to include the negotiated agreements on everybody's mind. "Put even more simply, shall Jews have any relation whatever, industrial or economic, with a nation which has declared war ... against the Jewish people everywhere?" [12]

He then described the difference between the initial boycott and what he now had in mind. "The Jewish boycott movement from the beginning has been absolutely spontaneous ... not imposed from above. It grew out of the anguish of the Jewish masses, who inevitably reacted to the declaration of war against them by taking in hand the only weapon accessible to the Jewish masses." The question, said Wise, was organization.

"I have no apologies to offer for the failure of the American Jewish Congress up to this time to declare a boycott .... It is easy enough for the unorganized and the irresponsible to make threats against Germany. . .. Throughout six months we have waited and waited, hoping against hope that it would not become necessary. [13]

"Today, we who are responsible and authorized representatives of millions of Jewish people in many lands, face a grave question .... Can we ... wait any longer?" In his best oratorical style, Wise answered his own question. "We can no longer expect the Jewish people to stand by our side and to place their faith in us unless we declare before this conference that the time has come for an organized, organized, ORGANIZED boycott -- tuchtig und grundlich [total and efficient] against Germany!" [14]

Those assembled were not a valiant band of grass-roots leaders with plenty of energy but no organization. Rather they were the directors of established Jewish organizations with budgets, field offices, printing facilities, and paid staffs. What they could accomplish in a week would take an Untermyer months to achieve. They commanded resources not only in the major cities but in the smaller cities and villages. Waiting to gather these men and women under one roof to pool their combined international resources was worthwhile. These people could make the boycott victorious. They accepted Wise's explanation of delay.

"We of the American Jewish Congress," Wise shouted, "could not, would not, did not seek to organize and proclaim a world Jewish boycott .... Throughout six months, I have maintained this because I believed that such a boycott could be declared only by a body such as meets tonight in Geneva and speaks on behalf of millions of Jews. Whatever decision may be reached by the World Jewish Congress will be supported to the limit by the American Jewish Congress, indeed by all America's Jewry, the largest Jewry on earth, consisting of more than a quarter of the world's Jewish population." [15]

If there were voices of question about Stephen Wise's place in the boycott movement, those voices now seemed stilled. Nothing would stop this assembly from pooling resources to economically strangle Hitler's Germany. The delegates knew they would have to stop the Transfer Agreement as well. And they had every intention of forcing the Zionist Organization to abandon it.

Those who had made it to Geneva, including Wise, were badly in need of sleep. So the conference adjourned after Wise's opening address. But as the delegates filed out of Salle Centrale late that September 5, 1933, they were united in their determination to spend the next two days planning to force Germany to crack that winter.

***

Under the unwritten code of the boycotters, Jews found handling German goods were to be branded as traitors and blacklisted. So in the first days of September, spontaneous calls went out in various countries to compel the Zionist Organization to stop its deals with Germany. [16] If not? Cherem.

For centuries, the cherem had been the curse of untouchability imposed against the Jewish people's greatest enemies and most reprehensible sinners. Once pronounced by a rabbi against a non-Jew or inanimate object, the person or object became untouchable for Jews. Once pronounced against a Jew, the Jew was either excommunicated or shunned or both. Anyone breaching the cherem would himself fall under the cherem. Obedience to this concept varied from community to community. Modern Jews would literally ignore a cherem. Orthodox Jews, however, considered the cherem as inviolable as the Sabbath itself. Moreover, the collective effect of numerous rabbis joining in a cherem decree could sway even a non-Orthodox Jew into obedience. In 1933, when deep religious traditions were ingrained in the large majority of Jewish households, the concept of cherem was powerful for a large part of the world Jewish population, especially in Europe. [17]

On September 6, the Assembly of Hebrew Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada was concluding its annual convention in New York. Two honored speakers addressed the group. The first was William Sweet, representing FDR's National Recovery Administration. Sweet flew in from Washington to urge the rabbis' influence for the NRA, which was advocating a boycott against companies not cooperating with the national recovery effort. The second speaker was Untermyer, who denounced those bargaining with Adolf Hitler to salvage "a few possessions" belonging to German Jews. Untermyer told the rabbis that a cherem was the only answer to such traitors. And it should be cast at once if Germany was to crack that winter. [18]

Once pronounced, the decree would be binding upon hundreds of orthodox congregations under the Assembly's authority. Synagogue members would be ordered not to handle any German merchandise. They would be obligated to extend the cherem of untouchability to those who did. If the Zionist Organization became untouchable, Orthodox Jews, including the Mizrachi, would literally have to separate themselves from the movement.

Cutting religious Jewry off from Zionism was a radical step, but many endorsed it. On the day of the ceremony, the convention even received a radiogram of encouragement from Rabbi A. J. Kook, chief rabbi of Palestine. But Untermyer believed excommunication would isolate too many Jews and instill the boycott with a religious character that non-Jews could not relate to. He therefore urged a cherem confined to German goods alone. This prompted several rabbis to protest disruptively. But the majority deferred to Untermyer, voting for a cherem of untouchability, but not excommunication. [19]

The solemn ritual began when two tall black candles were set on a table several feet apart, then lit. A rabbi wearing the traditional talis or prayer shawl, blew three times on the shofar, the twisted ram's horn traditionally sounded on the Day of Atonement. Following the shofar blasts, the chief rabbi of Newark, Rabbi B. A. Mendelson, chanted the decree in Hebrew: "In the name of the Assembly of Hebrew Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada and other rabbinical organizations that join us in our beliefs, we take upon ourselves ... as leaders of Israel, to decree a cherem on everything manufactured in Hitler's Germany. From today on we are to refrain from dealing in all basic materials such as metals, textiles, and other things ... which come to us from the Nazis .... We urge all to not knowingly violate this boycott which we have this day decreed." [20]

Rabbi Mendelson then took his gavel and ritually extinguished the candle flames. As the flames turned to smoke, many in the room were heard to mutter softly, "Like this, for Hitler." [21]

***

The spirit of the cherem was developing among the conferees in Geneva. The first working session on September 6 revolved around creating a viable worldwide boycott and the ultimate form of the World Jewish Congress. Leading off the deliberations was Nahum Goldmann, one of Zionism's most respected figures. He began with a confession: "What I could not say at Prague, I am stating from this platform as a good Zionist and a member of the Action Committee: Zionism is not in a position to handle the problem of Jewish rights in the Diaspora and can only handle the work of upbuilding Palestine .... Palestine is no solution. The solution must come from within Germany in order to avoid shattering Jewish rights in other countries." [22]

Goldmann told the delegates, "There must be two separate Jewish organizations -- one for Palestine upbuilding and another to conduct the fight for Jewish rights. The latter should be proclaimed at this conference." He acknowledged that such a world body would be incomplete without the Board of Deputies. "Of all the Western European groups, the most difficult one for us to include is the English one.... [But] I am convinced that eventually we will succeed in winning the Board of Deputies ... None of us underestimates their importance." [23]

The Deputies had in fact been close to joining Wise in sponsoring the Geneva conference. But the Zionist hierarchy in London had persuaded the Deputies to abandon all projects not in harmony with Zionist policy. This Goldmann knew, but was reluctant to verbalize. "I do not wish to go into detail as to why the Board of Deputies has so far remained aloof from taking a positive stand," Goldmann said. But, he added, when the World Jewish Congress became a reality, the Deputies would be unable to resist joining. Therefore, the first task of the conference, urged Goldmann, was to create the organization needed to conduct a "bitter," well-planned war against Nazi Germany. [24]

In the afternoon session, delegates debated whether their organization should be appointive or democratically elected. Dr. Henryk Rosmarin, a Polish General Zionist who had just arrived from Prague, bitterly argued, "A few days ago an agreement was signed between Germany and Palestine which brings shame upon the Jewish people. ... This was possible [because] there is no ... democratically elected representation of the Jewish people. [Zionist elections elected parties, not individuals.] If such a [democratically elected] authority were in existence," Rosmarin assured, "no Jew would dare ... enter into negotiation with the Hitler government." [25]

Stephen Wise later that night spoke of Zionist-Nazi deals during a formal address. He had intended to review the threat to international law posed by the Nazi regime, this for the benefit of the local press, which carried some influence over the Geneva-based League of Nations. The boycott was not really part of the address. But just a few minutes into his speech, Wise suddenly stopped to issue an unexpected public warning to the Zionist Organization: "I do not believe that the boycott has been ruthlessly trampled upon and violated by our fellow Jews or their representatives in Palestine," Wise said. "[But] if it be proved to me that any Jew in or out of Palestine, or any representative of any group of Jews, has been so base as to attempt to do business with Germany for the sake of profit and gain, I attest that life will not be bearable for any such man .... We are not rebuilding a Holy Land, out of which the Law and the Prophets came, in order to make a land of profits for some by their dealings with the German government." [26]

As Wise uttered those words, he was really envisioning the orange deal. He was trying to rationalize the Transfer Agreement itself as a regrettable but understandable necessity. He quickly followed his warning with a qualification: "But it is only fair to add, the Reich makes its own laws. Those laws are ruthless .... What shall a Jew in Germany do if Germany says to him: You may go out, you may leave this Reich, ... you can leave this Hell ... but you can only take part of your money with you. The rest you must leave us for purchase of wares. You can leave on no other condition. I could understand the Jews in Germany [concluding] ... that if they cannot go to Eretz Yisrael any other way, they may as well go that way. [27]

"It may be that if you and I were in Germany, we too would pay the penalties which a ruthless, lawless Hitler government might exact from us. But I repeat there will be no patience ... for any Jew on earth if, for the sake of profit, he violates the will of the Jewish people and the dictates of human conscience by doing business with Germany!" [28]

Wise's condemnation, indeed the condemnation of the Jewish world, was provoked by disclosures about the orange deal and the Transfer Agreement. But in fact they were just two of literally dozens of major commercial arrangements being negotiated between Palestine and Germany even as Wise spoke. There were breweries, bakeries, steelworks, cement factories, irrigation systems, printing presses, medical facilities, and a host of other state building enterprises. Wise and the other protesters didn't really understand what was happening, or how fast.

[admin]

40. A "Central Jewish Committee"

SEPTEMBER 7 was the day of decision for the Second World Jewish Conference. The tone was set by the first speaker at the morning plenary session, E. Mazur of the Federation of Polish Jews. Mazur could barely control his rage as he cried, "The entire agreement agreed to by the Zionist Exec, is a schande [in Yiddish, a shameful disgrace]. And this conference must issue a protest resolution against [both] the agreement and the negotiations .... The boycott is the only [defense] means at our disposal. Using it will prove that we still have the power to resist. [Therefore] the boycott must be organized in such a way that Jews will be morally unable to break it." The delegates warmly applauded. [1]

C. Rasner, also of the Federation of Polish Jews, joined his colleague in condemning the agreements with Nazi Germany and urged the delegates to vote specific sanctions against them. "The agreements made by Zionists with Germany are a schande," protested Rasner. "If the Zionist Congress did not have the courage to condemn them, that is its own business. We must do it -- in the sharpest possible manner." [2]

At this point Nahum Goldmann spoke up. As co-organizer of the World Jewish Congress, and as a major figure in the Zionist movement, Goldmann was a powerful voice at the conference. The day before, he had publicly confessed his failures at Prague, and then called for a world body dedicated to an international boycott, but things now were getting out of hand. Delegates were openly talking about binding resolutions of condemnation that would undoubtedly extend the boycott to the Zionist Organization itself if the transfer were not rescinded.

"I didn't have any intention of participating in this discussion," Goldmann said, "but I'm really forced to [Don't] interrupt me because I only have ten minutes [under the rules] Among the Jewish public an [anti- Zionist] campaign has started because of the agreement which was signed between a land settlement company in Palestine, which is a private company, and the German government .... Inasmuch as I am among those who had nothing to do with it, but who are one hundred percent in favor of it and are prepared to share the responsibility for it, let me say a few words on the subject -- not to make converts ... but rather to clarify it for you and the Jewish public, which is here represented by the Jewish press. Unfortunately, this wasn't possible at the Zionist Congress. [3]

"First of all," Goldmann explained, "the Zionist Organization has not signed any kind of agreement. It was not even involved in the negotiations. Hanotaiah made this agreement and a Zionist bank participated. The [Reich] foreign-currency management authority decided to permit an exception for Jews who emigrate to Palestine. This does not signify a breaking of the boycott. Boycott means throttling of exports from Germany and of the influx of payments into Germany. Here we are dealing with money which is a/ready in Germany; thus when these goods are later sold, no additional money flows into Berlin." [4]

Goldmann's rationales were not working. In desperation, he tried to make the conferees understand: "We are told we must make no deals with Germany. This is absurd! A people must be able to negotiate with any state in the world, especially during a state of war. Think of the negotiations concerning prisoners of war in Switzerland between the warring nations .... What is involved here is that these people who are emigrating from Germany would otherwise become beggars." [5]

But Goldmann's impassioned speech was not lessening their conviction that the Transfer Agreement would have to be stopped. A frustrated Goldmann, co-convener of the conference, flatly declared, "I am telling you that we will not permit this forum to be used for anti-Zionist maneuvers and I am asking you not to insist on resolutions which are directed against the Zionist Organization. The conference is to decide about the boycott question. But what has been done here [with the Transfer Agreement] was absolutely necessary and is not a crime." [6]

The next delegate answered, "Contrary to the opinion of Dr. Goldmann, this conference is authorized to deal with the question of agreements with the German government because this subject is organically connected to the question of the boycott." Another delegate added, "Dr. Goldmann has forgotten to talk about the ... oranges of Palestine .... What will happen is this: There will be a store in Palestine which will be proclaiming boycott of German goods, and the store next door will be selling them!" [7]

Dr. B. Mossinson ofthe Vaad Leumi, Jewish Palestine's national council, then stood to ask the delegates not to blame Palestine. Mossinson proclaimed that he was personally against the agreements, and Palestine as a whole was boycotting German merchandise vigorously. "This agreement was made by individuals," pleaded Mossinson, "and only individuals are guilty of breaking the boycott." Dr. Mordechai Nurock followed with a demand that "every traitor of the boycott must be designated a strikebreaker." Dr. Nurock used the term "strikebreaker" advisedly, since it was the term Mapai ascribed to Revisionists who sought employment outside the Histadrut combine. [8]

Dr. Rosmarin, however, tried to end the discussion with reason and understanding. "The boycott broke out spontaneously," he began. "Jewish public opinion started it earlier than did the politicians. . .. The leadership probably did not have the courage to proclaim the boycott publicly.... It is no secret for anybody that at the Zionist Congress there were great differences of opinion, but I have the courage as an organized Zionist to say from this platform that the boycott should have been proclaimed there. [9]

"Yet even if we can understand the misgivings that existed there, there must not be any misgivings here," Dr. Rosmarin said. "If we had proclaimed the boycott three months ago, today there would be no disunity in public opinion. The Palestinian agreement hurts us because it hurts our dignity and it weakens the Jewish people in its fight. [10]

"It is obvious that the discussions ... have been passionate, but there are situations -- moments in the life of people -- when no compromises are possible. I am in agreement with those who have spoken against the transfer and ... want to proclaim the boycott. I am asking you to not waste any more time with discussion. The matter has been decided. Let's concentrate on what we need for the boycott battle. Assistance, implementation, the activities of the various committees, and so on." [11]

Those in the hall instantly applauded Rosmarin's clarity, but Rosmarin's call was not heeded. Goldmann continued trying to persuade his fellow Jews not to break with the Zionist Organization. He also disclaimed the orange deal-which he openly condemned as profit-motivated and inexcusable. But to the end, he defended the Transfer Agreement as a historic Zionist obligation. [12]

After many hours of discussion, much of it outside the formal sessions, the delegates made a decision. At some future date, Jewish elections would be held throughout the world, creating the desired democratic representative body. In the meantime, a so-called Central Jewish Committee would be appointed, probably headquartered in Paris or Geneva, comprised of ten or twelve Jewish leaders. This elite committee would immediately coordinate the boycott efforts of all Jewish organizations represented at the conference. [13] Presumably, this Central Jewish Committee would link up alternate suppliers with anxious buyers in the promised rerouting of world commerce around Germany, extend the consumer boycott from the major cities to provincial areas, and vigilantly oppose any barter or bilateral trade arrangements with the Nazis.

Later that day, after the delegates had struggled over the wording for hours, a boycott resolution was finally formulated. It called for a worldwide Jewish boycott to be coordinated by the Central Jewish Committee, so that "the Jewish people may not abandon legitimate, honorable, and peaceful resistance to the war waged on the Jewish people." No mention was made in the resolution of the Zionist Organization's agreements with Germany, but commercial or other relations between Jews and Nazi Germany were expressly forbidden. [14] At this point, the chief rabbis of Rome and Florence walked out. They had been arguing on Mussolini's behalf against any boycott resolution at all. Having failed, they no longer wanted to be associated with the conference. [15] The other conferees remained, but few if any of them were certain about their decisions.

Formal general debate resumed at nine-thirty that night. The last speaker, at about 11:00 P.M., was Leo Motzkin, who issued a solemn appeal. He asked the boycotters to understand the Zionists who had negotiated the Transfer Agreement, asserting, "Even this step on the part of some Zionists, who in this way attempted to save as much German Jewish capital as possible, can be justified; we must not speak of treason against the Jewish people. You must understand this! [16]

"Personally, I was one of those in Prague who was against this agreement. And my rationale was as follows. Despite the fact that in this manner thousands of Jews are saved and their move to Palestine is thereby made possible, it breaches Jewish solidarity. . . . But at the same time I must ask you to understand that this is really not a manifestation against Jewry." [17]

Technically, the Transfer Agreement had been consigned by the Eighteenth Zionist Congress to the Actions Committee, which Motzkin chaired. His last words to the conference delegates that night were: "I have from the very beginning stated that this is a big mistake. I will attempt to keep this mistake from being made." [18] Motzkin had in fact decided to do all in his power to strike the agreement down at the next Actions Committee meeting, due to convene within weeks.

But Motzkin's appeal seemed ineffective. The conference's boycott resolution was on a collision course with the Zionist movement. If the Central Jewish Committee were established, it would extend its influence into Palestine, thus making sales of German merchandise there impossible. It would block foreign investment in transfer enterprises. It would quickly have an impact on the Anglo-Palestine Bank. A secondary boycott would ultimately extend to the Zionist Organization itself. And, of course, the resolution would bring into reality the consolidated global boycott Germany had feared, the avoidance of which was a prime motive in the Reich's cooperation with Palestine.

In short, there could be no Zionist solution to the German Jewish question, there could be no transfer, and there could be no Jewish State in the foreseeable future if the resolution creating a global boycott entity was implemented. The members of the resolutions committee were all good Jews, all good Zionists. The Zionist movement was in fact a major impetus in the formation of the World Jewish Congress. These men and women had never expected to have to choose between being good Jews and being good Zionists. But a choice was necessary.

[admin]

41. The Final Moment

AT NOON on Friday, September 8, 1933, the delegates and reporters gathered at the Salle Centrale. Divisive conflicts, painful delays, and Jewish communal chaos had preceded this moment. For six months, Stephen Wise had battled and baffled every boycott leader from Samuel Untermyer to Lord Melchett -- always on the basis of the superior, decisive boycott organization that would emerge from this Geneva conference. All of Wise's organizational brinkmanship had been devoted to the achievement of this one moment.

The delegates and the world knew what to expect. Wise had thrilled the convention and the press in his keynote speech with promises to "organize, organize, ORGANIZE." He had lectured on the inadvisability and uselessness of a "spontaneous" boycott. He had identified international structure as the missing ingredient needed to make the anti-Hitler boycott triumphant. Now came the moment when the global boycott entity was to be announced.

Nahum Goldmann opened the session, announcing to the crowded hall that the various committees of the conference had formulated resolutions divided into two parts. He added, "It is no secret that the resolution about the boycott was preceded by long negotiation. In the end, we agreed, however. And I believe this text can be unanimously approved." [1] Goldmann then announced, "I will read the [non-boycott] resolutions first, because they are the least controversial." He then read the resolutions calling for elections in Jewish communities throughout the world to create the World Jewish Congress as a democratic representative body to fight for Jewish rights. The enthusiastic crowd shouted their approval, and Goldmann proclaimed that the resolution was adopted by acclamation. [2]

"I am now asking Dr. Wise to read the boycott resolution." [3] Wise stepped up to the lectern to read the six sentences divided into two paragraphs that the Jewish world and indeed all foes of Hitler had awaited. The last sentence was the pivotal one. It would explain the shift from a spontaneous boycott to an organized boycott under the coordination of a Central Jewish Committee.

Wise began reading: "The World Jewish Conference notes with deepest satisfaction that from the beginning of the Hitler regime, and its anti-Jewish laws and acts, the Jewish people instinctively and spontaneously resorted to the one immediately accessible weapon of self-defense: the moral and economic boycott. In the spirit of individual and collective self-respect, the Jewish people through the boycott affirms that Jews cannot hold any economic or other relation with the Nazi government of the Third Reich" -- this was the reference to Zionist deals with Germany -- "and believes that its boycott must continue to be shared by millions of non-Jews in all lands, who understand and sympathize with the Jewish people's abhorrence of the Nazi anti-Jewish precept and practice." [4]

Wise went on: "When the Jewish boycott of German goods and wares is to be ended depends not upon the Jewish people but upon the Nazi government. This instrumentality of moral and economic pressure Jews have been compelled reluctantly to adopt and utilize. But they will not lay this down until such time as the great wrong inflicted upon the German Jews is undone and the German Jews once again be placed in the status and position which were rightly their own before the accession of the Hitler government." [5]

The final sentence was to ordain the Central Jewish Committee to enforce the ban on Jewish relations with the Reich -- which would end the Transfer Agreement, and coordinate the spontaneous boycott. Wise read the words: "The conference solemnly calls upon the Jewish people loyally to continue in their legitimate, honorable, and peaceable resistance against the war waged by Hitlerism upon the German Jews and upon the whole Jewish people." [6]

But where was it? Where was the enforcement clause? Where was the Central Jewish Committee? Where was the promise to be organized? This resolution merely called for the continuation of the spontaneous boycott, the "unorganized" boycott.

They had backed down. It is unknown exactly when. Sometime after the reporters left late on the night of September 7, perhaps in the middle of the night, perhaps at dawn, perhaps just before noon. But sometime before the September 8 closing ceremony, the boycott resolution of the Second World Jewish Conference was changed. [7] The decisive moment had come, but Wise, Goldmann, and the others on the resolutions committee could not carry through. Not if it meant war with Zionism, and subversion of what increasingly seemed to be the pivotal opportunity to redeem the Jewish nation. Israel was at stake. The Jewish people were at stake.

It was a choice, and perhaps since Prague they all knew what choice they would make no matter how hard they protested and resisted. Those who understood even a fraction of the power the Transfer Agreement held knew in their hearts that the Jewish State would rise out of the anguish and ashes of German Jewry -- and indeed German Jewry would be only the first wave. Nazism would reach out to all Europe. Whole branches of the Jewish people may wither, but the trunk remains. Wise, Goldmann, and the others saw the branches going down and grabbed for the trunk with a sense of desperation and destiny.

Wise had probably known it deep inside for days as he grasped the true meaning of the Transfer Agreement. Torn between the instinct to fight and the need for establishing a Jewish national home, Wise himself acted out the fundamental Jewish conflict between the call of Zion and the urge to achieve equality in the Diaspora. Two days before, on September 6, Stephen Wise had injected an unexpected and strangely melancholy passage into a speech before the conference. Essentially, he conceded the destruction of European Jewry as a sacrificial warning to the world of the coming Hitler danger. He said this: "Once again the Jewish people seems called upon to playa great role in history, perhaps the greatest role in all the ages of its tragic history. Once again the Jewish people are called upon to suffer, for we are the suffering servants of humanity. We are called upon to suffer that humanity and civilization may survive and may endure. We have suffered before. We are the eternal suffering servants of God, of that world history which is world judgment.

"We do not rebel against the tragic role we must play if only the nations of the earth may achieve some gain, may profit as a result of our sufferings, and may realize in time the enormity of the danger they face in that common enemy of mankind which has no other aim than to conquer and destroy. We are ready if only the precious and the beautiful things of life may survive. This is once again the mission of the Jews." [8]

It was in this same speech that Wise suddenly switched topics and lashed out at Zionist commercial ties with Nazi Germany.

What went through Wise's mind on September 8 as he read the resolution that reneged on his international promise to organize the anti-Nazi boycott no one will ever know. The conference audience, however, was unaware of the subtle change, unaware that the construction of Dr. Wise's well-elocuted words specifically deleted the coordinating authority he had promised. When the sixth and final sentence of the boycott resolution was read, they all cheered and applauded. Goldmann took the opportunity to say, "I note that the resolution has been accepted unanimously." Even more applause followed. [9]

Wise even followed up with a stem denunciation of Palestinian commercial relations with Germany. He called it ''the new Golden Calf -- the Golden Orange," and told a cheering crowd, "I think I speak the mind of Jews everywhere when I say we hold in abhorrence any Jew, whether in or out of Palestine, who undertakes to make commercial arrangements with the Nazi government for any reason whatsoever." He added the obligatory qualifications that hopefully such rumors were not true. [10]

After the boycott resolution, Goldmann introduced Leo Motzkin, who read a special third resolution, this one on the German Jewish question. The eloquent five-point declaration condemned Nazi persecution and called for a program under League of Nations auspices to finance the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. The conference's resolution on the German Jewish question, except for its condemnatory language, was almost identical to the one passed at Prague. Goldmann then announced that this third resolution was also unanimously adopted. [11]

He added that a special decision had been made to turn over "the political affairs" of the Second World Jewish Conference to the Paris-based Committee of Jewish Delegations until international elections created a viable World Jewish Congress. The Committee of Jewish Delegations was a Zionist-sponsored Jewish defense body that, like the Zionist Organization, was recognized by the League of Nations. The president of the Committee of Jewish Delegations was Leo Motzkin. The Committee would manage the Geneva conference's "political affairs" in joint tenancy with a panel of ten eminent Jewish and Zionist leaders, including Nahum Goldmann and Victor Jacobson, a member of the Zionist Executive. [12]

While the "political affairs" of the conference mainly embraced the special resolution calling for organized emigration to Palestine, they also included the spontaneous boycott. As such, leadership of the worldwide boycott was being consigned to Zionist officials and Zionist organizations. This was the fate of the international boycott so painstakingly nurtured by the Jews of the world. The boycott would be led by leaders who in fact opposed it.

Once again, after reading the text of the decision, Goldmann announced adoption by acclamation. [13]

Stephen Wise then rose to deliver his final comments. It must have been a difficult speech. He could not boast of triumph in finally organizing the Jewish people. Instead, he had to pretend the Geneva conference was not a fiasco for the boycott movement. Wise rambled a bit and contradicted himself. In fact, his first two sentences were: "'We have just adopted a most important [boycott] resolution. It is true that in that resolution we have said nothing new to the Jewish people, but we dare believe that we have fulfilled its wish and ... have given our approval to that which the masses of the people have instinctively done from the beginning and demanded of us -- namely, moved forward to the boycott." [14]

Wise once more felt obligated to explain: "We have postponed action ... for half a year in the hope that a change might come over the situation. Alas, the situation grows graver from day to day, and it is now nothing more but instinctive preservation which moves us to resort to ... the only weapon which is accessible to us, namely the moral and material boycott .... We do not declare war against Germany, but ... we are prepared to defend ourselves against the will of Hitler Germany to destroy. We must defend ourselves because we are a people which lives and wishes to live." [15]

In a dramatic flourish, he declared to the crowd, "My last word that I wish to speak to you is this -- Our people lives -- Am Yisrael chai!" [16]

Wild applause erupted as the audience cheered the emotional moment, [17] never comprehending that it was an ovation for failure. The object of the conference -- creation of a world boycott infrastructure-was never achieved, was in fact abandoned.

A few minutes later, Nahum Goldmann formally declared the Second World Jewish Conference to be over. Even before he did, the delegates were streaming for the doors, confident that an organized boycott was to be triumphantly led by conference leaders. A dramatic confrontation in the aisle only reinforced that view. The Munich correspondent for Hitler's personal newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, was seated in the press gallery. He was about to leave when he was suddenly confronted by Stephen Wise. As a crowd drew around, Wise told the Nazi in perfect German: "I cannot help wondering what would have been my fate ... if I had come to Nuremberg . . . . The representative of Volkischer Beobachter can remain quietly here. He is secure among us and all that we ask of him is that he reports the truth. There is nothing secret in our councils, and we wish above all that the Germany of Hitler learn the truth ... concerning our feelings and attitudes." [18]

Drama, applause, speechmaking, plenty of promises, eloquent resolutions, and defiant confrontation made the Second World Jewish Conference an elaborate show that pleased its audience. But when the boycott resolution was finally studied, revealing an obvious absence of any move to organize the anti-Hitler movement, it quickly became clear that the Geneva conference simply did not advance the boycott cause.

A syndicated column in the St. Louis Jewish weekly Modern View reported, "After considerable debate and argument, the resolution committee of the World Jewish Conference ... brought in a report which failed to proclaim a world Jewish boycott against Germany, but which endorsed the 'instinctive and spontaneous resort to boycott' which already exists." London's Jewish Chronicle said the resolutions "opened no new avenues and would be approved by any Jewish gathering." Many other newspapers chose to merely report the Geneva resolution matter-of-factly, emphasizing that the conference called for the continuation of the "spontaneous" boycott, with the word "spontaneous" always in quotes. And of course, Stephen Wise himself told the delegates in Salle Centrale, "It is true that in that resolution we have said nothing new to the Jewish people." [19]

In many ways, Geneva was the crossroads, more than New York, Jerusalem, London, Amsterdam, or Prague -- or at least Geneva was the final crossroads. An awesome choice was made. Stephen Wise and the other Jewish leaders made the choice. They chose the road to Palestine.

[admin]

42. After Geneva

THE SECOND WORLD JEWISH CONFERENCE occupied Stephen Wise's thoughts as the train headed north from Geneva to Paris. Decisions had been made that only God could judge, only history could vindicate. During the several-hour train ride, a shy and obviously fearful seventeen-year-old German girl kept glancing furtively at Wise and his party. Wise could not help but notice, and in fact became preoccupied with the girt Several times he tried to speak with her, but she would only stare in silence. Finally, near Paris she gathered the courage to ask, "Are you coming from the World Jewish Conference in Geneva?" [1]

"Yes," Stephen Wise answered. "Why do you ask?" The young girl would not respond. Wise repeatedly tried to break her silence, but she would not speak until just before her stop. She was a German Jewish refugee, without family, now working as a maid in a French village. In Germany, she had lived in a nice house with her family. One night the Nazis came and abducted her brother. The next day he was returned in a coffin marked "NOT TO BE OPENED -- SHOT IN FLIGHT." [2]

Wise asked the terrified girl, "Was the coffin opened?" She answered, "Yes, but don't ask me." Yet, in a moment more, the girl relived the discovery that her brother's face had been shot away. [3]

The girl's tragic story and the girl herself couldn't help but move Stephen Wise. He bluntly asked whether she thought the Geneva Conference had helped or done damage. The girl looked at him and answered, "Es muss sein, es muss sein" -- (What must be, must be.) [4] She then left the train, but her last remark haunted Wise. For several weeks, he could not help but recall in his private and public conversations that unclear instant when the innocent young refugee spoke those few words: "What must be, must be." [5]

On Friday, September 15, Rabbi Wise arrived in New York. Unlike the return of Samuel Untermyer, there were no welcoming committees, no fanfares, no national radio broadcasts. After resting on the Sabbath, Wise called a small press conference in his study at the Free Synagogue. [6]

In a dramatic session marked by Wise's barely controllable emotional outbursts, Wise tried to explain his activities abroad to reporters. He emphasized that the situation for Jews in Germany was graver than anyone could imagine. Only international pressure, hopefully by the League of Nations, coupled with the anti-Nazi boycott could "bring about the end of the Hitler regime." But, he added, the world must also be prepared to organize an emigration out of Germany. One reporter asked why Wise had wavered so long on the boycott question, and whether the Geneva resolution was not merely a repetition of the boycott voted some months earlier by Untermyer's World Jewish Economic Federation in Amsterdam. [7]

Wise replied emotionally and defensively, "You ask ... what has led me to change my mind? I have from the beginning believed that the boycott was a natural, inevitable weapon in the hands of individual Jews against Hitlerism . . . . My position from the beginning has been that a world Jewish boycott could only be declared against Germany by a world body of Jews. I have never changed my position with regard to that. If boycott there was to be, I insisted all the time that representatives of the world must assemble and declare such a boycott. This was finally done under the auspices of the World Jewish Conference ... and it was I who introduced and urged its unanimous adoption." [8]

Unable to restrain his bitterness about Untermyer's triumph, Wise added, "I do not know anything about the World Economic Federation, if there is such a body. I believe there was a conference of one dozen or fifteen people in Amsterdam, which called itself the World Jewish Economic Federation. I refuse to discuss anything that may have been said or done by the so-called World Jewish Economic Federation, or its head [Samuel Untermyer]. My battle is against Hitlerism. We Jews are engaged in a war of self-defense which will tax every atom of energy of Jews everywhere. There may be Jews who are so little concerned about the peril to world Jewry as to be prepared to engage in the divertissement of Jewish quarrel and strife. I refuse to be diverted. One war at a time. [9]

"For the same reason, I refuse to permit any celebration of my homecoming by the American Jewish Congress." This referred to the fanfare for Untermyer upon his return from Amsterdam. "There is no occasion, as far as I can see, for celebrations or banquets or thanksgivings, nor will there be any in Jewish life until after the Hitler regime shall have ended." [10]

Wise castigated America as being alone in refusing any sizable number of refugees. He praised "countries like England, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and Austria in extending their hospitality to refugee Jews. Up to this time, the only great country which has failed to offer such hospitality is our own." [11]

However, there was hope, Wise explained, because Palestine would be able to absorb 50,000 to 100,000 German Jews within the next decade. "Such a possibility is rendered likelier because for reasons . . . difficult to understand, Germany permits Jews to leave the country for Palestine and to take ... £1000 of their possessions, which is not true in the case of refugees fleeing to other lands." This comment raised the issue of pacts between Germany and Zionist bodies, including the Transfer Agreement. [12]

Wise answered that there was still great confusion over whether the Transfer Agreement actually existed, although he was unalterably opposed to an arrangement allowing emigration with assets via a merchandise sale. "I, for my part, felt and feel that of all places on earth, Palestine must be above suspicion, and that nothing could be worse than that the Jewish boycott against Germany should be breached by Palestine or those wishing to go to Palestine." [13] Wise was angry. He wanted to fight. Yet he knew whatever fight ensued could not be victorious.

For several more minutes, Wise rambled between different postures on the boycott, what the Geneva conference had actually accomplished, and whether the boycott would or would not be successful. At the end he suddenly broke into a telling of the incident on the train, recounting how he had met a young refugee girl whose brother's face had been shot away. "This is a sample of the horrors to which my people are being subjected in Germany!" he cried. [14]

The press conference that morning was less a presentation of fact than an unwitting statement of confusion about what organized Jewry had done and was intending to do about the Hitler question. Few reporters published any mention of Dr. Wise's statements.

One week later, on September 23, at 9:00 P.M., Dr. Wise went to the offices of the American Jewish Congress to explain his activities in Europe to several dozen members of the Congress' Administrative Committee. They wanted answers about whatever had happened to the organized boycott, why it was necessary to sabotage Untermyer's work, and what were the facts about the Transfer Agreement. This time Wise's audience was composed of people who knew many of the ins and outs of protest politics over the summer, people with the power to turn the Congress away from Wise at this moment of accountability.

After a few words of introduction, Wise began speaking: "I think the best thing to do would be to give a chronological story, a story which will be more or less chronological in its character. My work already began on the steamer going to Europe." Wise stopped. "If I am to speak frankly tonight, it must be with the understanding that you [Bernard Deutsch], as chairman, will guarantee that nothing I say will be reported in the press. I cannot begin to talk of the things which I am going to say ... unless, ladies and gentlemen, I have the feeling that nothing will be repeated." Having received the assurance he needed, Wise proceeded. [15]

He tried to make them understand what immeasurable good he had contributed to the worldwide protest movement. "There was no action, there was no thought of action in Europe until ... Deutsch and I ... sent those cables to Poland, Rumania, and Czechoslovakia [calling for a worldwide day of protest focusing on the March 27 Madison Square Garden rally]. The whole great European protest movement was undertaken as a result of our inspiration and suggestion .... It was not until the twenty-third or twenty-fourth of March that the agitation throughout Europe and Palestine began, not one day sooner .... Up to our last day in Europe, I never met anyone ... who did not feel that things would have been infinitely worse in Germany if it had not been for the agitation led by America -- infinitely worse." [16]

A moment later, Wise found himself again talking about the girl on the train. "I asked that girl if she thought we had helped or done damage," related Wise. "Her answer was 'Es muss sein, es muss sein,' It has to be." His very next words were, "I want you to know, for your satisfaction, that I hesitated, I faltered just as much as anyone did. I knew the terrible responsibility. But I got the impression, I want you to know it, that our agitation was enormously helpful. All German Jews, whose judgment is worthwhile, think so." [17]

He returned to a chronological account explaining intrigue-filled meetings in London as he bargained with the Board of Deputies to support the Geneva conference. He repeatedly denied responsibility for canceling Untermyer's London boycott gathering, but admitted he opposed it because the World Economic Conference was convening in London at the same time. Wise recounted the serpentine development at the Eighteenth Zionist Congress, its failure even to vote on the Revisionist boycott resolution, and the confusion over the Transfer Agreement. "Labor [Mapai] must accept the responsibility ... Labor had a virtual majority; Labor controlled the Congress; Labor said absolutely nothing must be said about the boycott." Wise then told of his repeated but unavailing efforts to force revocation of the Transfer Agreement and indeed all relations between Zionist bodies and the Third Reich. [18]

Rabbi Wise tried to cast the best light possible upon the Second World Jewish Conference held in Geneva. Although he extolled its show of unity, he was in the end forced to confront the fact that the boycott had not been organized, that Geneva had failed in its prime mission. The boycott, asserted Wise, "is a weapon, but it is not the weapon .... The president of the United States and the prime minister of England can do more than a hundred boycotts." [19]

Wise spoke for some time to the Administrative Committee, alone and without interruption, offering sharp analysis, defensive explanations, rambling insights, emotional observations, and desperate denials. He had tried to explain his motives, his achievements, his contributions, his failures, his disappointments. To both critics and supporters alike, Wise summed up his efforts with these emotional words: "I gave my best, I gave the uttermost of my devotion, and such strength as I have, to the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Conference. In return, I think I have the right to ask for the loyal, faithful cooperation of the members of the Administrative Committee in the days that are coming. I would like to feel that, whether the members ... always agree with me or not -- after all, I am not an arbiter, I am not a tyrant, I do not try to impose my will upon this body -- I may have made a mistake in the boycott, I don't believe I did." [20]

The very first to speak after Wise's apologia was Mrs. Goldie Myerson, an Administrative Committee member and prominent Mapai leader in America. She declared Wise could not expect Mapai people to sit by quietly in the face of his remarks about the Zionist Congress. Others tried to steer the conversation to pragmatic questions of cooperation with Untermyer's movement and whether Wise's report was acceptable. Mrs. Myerson interrupted and demanded that some of Dr. Wise's comments about Mapai be stricken from the record. [21] Mrs. Goldie Myerson was later to change her name to Golda Meir and become one of Israel's most memorable prime ministers.

Mrs. Myerson's objections were finally overruled, and the ensuing debate revolved around whether Stephen Wise had properly explained himself. In one inadvertent but telling remark, Bernard Deutsch, Wise's most loyal associate, declared that Dr. Wise had satisfactorily answered what he had "been charged with" doing in Europe. Stephen Wise immediately stood to reject this unintentionally accusatory language. Wise denied that the vituperations of his critics, such as Untermyer, were valid charges, and he asked that Deutsch's comments be expunged from the record. [22]

Then Joseph Tenenbaum, a leading boycott advocate, rose to second a motion of confidence, adding these comments: "Dr. Wise was the first to raise the question of a boycott, but a silent boycott. It is not due to him that the silent boycott on our part was not put into action .... Dr. Wise was not opposed to the [boycott] resolution, only postponement. We got his ... [proboycott] opinion in Prague when it was announced throughout the world. . . . I therefore rise not only to endorse the action of Dr. Wise, but to assure him that our loyalty is steadfast ... and that we are happy to greet him here and to thank him for his noble work in Europe as well as here." [23]

Those dissatisfied with Wise's statement, especially Mr. Zelig Tygel, who had become an Untermyer organizer, pressed for a debate with an eye toward forcing Wise to cooperate with Untermyer. [24] But Wise's supporters outnumbered the critics. His supporters could not abandon the man who had devoted his entire life's energies to the defense and advancement of the Jewish community. And they could not abandon him because Stephen Wise was the Congress. Yes, there were hundreds of thousands of federated members, with branch offices and constituent organizations in dozens of cities; there were committees and Commissions and special panels and an array of vice-presidents and functioning and titular officials. But all that notwithstanding, Stephen Wise was the Congress. And they could not and would not abandon him.

Nor did Stephen Wise want to be abandoned. For Wise, there was no existence outside his devotion to the cause of Jewish dignity and rights. Jewish leadership was his air, his salt, his bread.

In a moment of choice, his supporters stood to demand a resolution of full confidence for Stephen Wise. Finally, even his detractors could not abstain. The resolution was carried unanimously. [25]

The next day, September 24, at a Congress press conference, Wise announced the immediate pursuit of German Jewish emigration, with a special provision whereby emigrants to Palestine could take part of their capital, along the lines of the Ruppin plan introduced at the Eighteenth Zionist Congress. [26]

As for the boycott, Wise was confronted by acerbic questions from reporters about cooperation with Untermyer, Wise's sabotage of the London boycott conference, and Wise's stance on the boycott altogether. Wise answered that he would cooperate with Untermyer's League for the Defense of Jewish Rights (American alter ego of Untermyer's Federation) if Untermyer would cooperate with the American Jewish Congress. "The boycott began long before the American League for the Defense of Jewish Rights was dreamed of," Wise said. "When I was pressed to declare a boycott, my position was this: A boycott, yes, by all means, the stiffest, sternest kind of boycott against German wares, products and goods, but there were ... considerations that moved me, and I am not in the last ashamed of having been governed by them. [27]

"Some of you [reporters] may not have thought it important ... but in March and April, a rather well-known citizen of the United States whose name is Franklin Delano Roosevelt was preparing to convene . , . a World Economic Conference .... I confess that I felt as an American that I did not wish to ... [facilitate] a conference to be called in London for a boycott against Germany ... at a time and in a place at which ... the president of the United States had summoned a World Economic Conference." [28] With his customary flair, Wise defiantly told them, "Whether that was an error of judgment will be decided, not by you, ladies and gentlemen, but by the times that are to be." [29]

***

Fall was approaching and the Reich was unsure whether they had broken the boycott. The Eighteenth Zionist Congress had adjourned on September 4 with a guarantee that the boycott would be smothered, but the ensuing days revealed a continued drama of major boycott developments. On September 6, the 600,000-member Federation of Swedish Trade Unions adopted the boycott-as their British and Dutch counterparts had in prior weeks. Sweden was among Germany's most vital customers, and because the Stockholm government openly endorsed the action, the move was seen as semiofficial. In America, Untermyer was proving unstoppable as he began constructing a nationwide boycott infrastructure to snuff out Germany's last large markets in the United States. Since so many prominent Zionists were at Geneva when Stephen Wise's conference promulgated its "spontaneous" boycott resolution, the Reich again wondered if the Zionists were not playing a duplicitous game. [30]

On September 13, 1933, Hitler's news organ, Volkischer Beobachter, published a threatening notice. "It is clear that the Zionists are responsible for the boycott resolution presented to Geneva. With Rabbi Wise and other Geneva boycott leaders being directly drawn from the Zionist Organization, it could not be otherwise Boycott of this sort would be equivalent to a declaration of war! The Board of Deputies is playing a double game with Germany. With one hand it is holding in check the boycott movement and with the other it is inciting the British government to act against Germany." [31]

Nazi Germany could take no chances. They would have to be ready for the worst. On September 13, Chancellor Hitler and Propaganda Minister Goebbels entered a Berlin reception room where the foreign and domestic press was waiting. As Hitler appeared, an honor cadre of tall, muscular black-shirted guards snapped to attention with a forceful click of heels, a powerful raised-arm salute, and a unison shout of "Heil Hitler." Der Fuhrer, dressed in a dark blue double-breasted suit, acknowledged the ritual with his customary return gesture -- arm casually bent at the elbow, palm facing forward. [32]

Goebbels walked to the front and announced a comprehensive Winter Relief program to keep starvation from the German people during the coming bitter months. Beginning at once, all Germans would be expected to make the Sunday midday meal -- traditionally the elaborate family meal -- a one-pot affair costing no more than fifty pfennigs. This cost limit would restrict the fare to varieties of puddings, porridge, stew, and soup. The savings was to be donated to Winter Relief to feed the unemployed. National meatless days were to be observed once weekly, with fish being recommended to help the ailing fish industries. All public restaurants, hotels, and railway dining cars would be expected to serve model one-pot meals as an example to the rest of the country. [33]

Farmers would be required to donate foodstuffs. Retailers were to contribute warm clothing. Fuel companies were to donate coal and oil. Relief goods would reach the smallest dorf via an immense distribution network manned by transport employees, the army, police, fire brigades, and Nazi volunteers. The railroads would carryall goods free of charge, the bus companies would provide vehicles. The hardest-hit towns and rural areas were to be "adopted" by more fortunate locales. [34]

A second phase of Winter Relief revolved around a fund-raising effort that Goebbels termed "unparalleled" and "grandiose." A house-to-house donation drive was to canvass every urban and rural dwelling. Any German with an active bank account was instructed to make an immediate deduction. Workmen were to donate one hour's wages each month. All those donating once for the month would receive a special tag or home plaque making them immune from street collectors. Special donations were encouraged from all commercial concerns and individuals, especially Jews and foreign-relief organizations ifthey expected to keep Jews from starvation that winter. Arrangements were made for exemplary large contributions: RM 100,000 from NSDAP headquarters in Munich and Volkischer Beobachter; various banks and manufacturing firms donated RM 30,000 to RM 50,000 each; I.G. Farben outdid them all with a RM I million contribution. [35]

The fact that Hitler appeared in person for Goebbels' announcement and the fact that the foreign press was invited was significant. This was to be the first big, decisive battle, the battle for survival. Would Germany crack that winter? Adolf Hitler was boldly telling the world his answer: nein!

***

The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermyer. Upon learning of the Transfer Agreement and the Eighteenth Zionist Congress' refusal to join the boycott, Untermyer dispatched organizers throughout America to commence a massive fund-raising campaign for his new boycott organization. By the time the shock of Geneva's inaction registered, Untermyer's American League for the Defense of Jewish Rights had called an emergency meeting of 250 national civic, business, and interfaith leaders. [36]

On September 10, standing before his boycott leaders at New York's Hotel Astor, Untermyer issued a warning to Hitler: "The day of reckoning is at hand!" In a matter of hours, a national strategy had been formulated. The United States was divided into twelve boycott zones. Nonsectarian coordination committees would work on an industry-by-industry basis to replace German products with substitutes of equal quality, preferably American products. Boycott offices were to act as clearinghouses to "reduce imports from Germany to the vanishing point." [37]

Much of the appeal would be "strictly business," involving entrepreneurs whose sole interest was ousting their German competitors. Shielded from publicity, a great number of major U.S. corporations could then quietly take a leading role in the boycott. The movement would be brought into every neighborhood via posters, plaques, filmstrips, and radio talk shows, all of it dovetailing with the National Recovery Act, making it a patriotic duty to switch to American goods. An international liaison office would coordinate with the commercial attaches and trade sections of foreign embassies and consulates, introduce foreign chambers of commerce to American sources, and publish weekly trade bulletins. [38]

Women, the greatest commercial power in America, would be the front line of offense. In addition to organizing consumers, women by the thousands were to go from store to store, identifying remnant German stock and convincing merchants to return or withdraw them. [39]

Leading the war alongside Untermyer would be a "committee of 100" located in all major cities. The top fifteen of this committee would function as the decision-making body. The assembled delegates expeditiously elected J. George Fredman of the Jewish War Veterans; Elias Ginsburg, America's top-ranking Revisionist; outspoken Zionist leader Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland; Max Korshak of Chicago; Philadelphia publisher J. David Stern, and ten others. [40]

To blanket the nation with boycott required half a million dollars at once. An inaugural dinner was held that night, September 10, to launch the fundraising campaign. Over 1,500 guests were encouraged by former U.S. Ambassador to Germany James W. Gerard, former secretary of state Bainbridge Colby, and former New York governor Al Smith. The major speeches congratulating Untermyer and advocating boycott were once again broadcast live on national radio. And newspapers devoted prominent coverage to the new boycott organization. [41]

During the days and weeks to follow, Untermyer's hundred disciples set off to bring the nation to boycott. Donations poured in. Offices opened. Printing presses began rolling. Women took to the avenues with their banners and their clipboards. [42]

Industrial experts were tapped to identify alternate sources for the 7,000 German products still sold in America. The boycott had been well received in the more populated East, the North, and the West, but remained relatively undeveloped in the South and the Southwest. For instance, 25 percent of the sugar beets used by southern sugar-beet refineries came from German farms in Westphalia. But swift action was seen when by September 16, the Kansas City boycott committee enlisted the cooperation of sixteen regional food wholesalers in gathering the signatures of 8,000 retail grocers demanding southern beet refineries replace German beet sugar with crops grown in America and elsewhere. [43]

A whirlwind tour by the seventy-five-year-old Untermyer was scheduled at once for Philadelphia, Hartford, Chicago, St. Louis, San Francisco and other cities. [44]

And he built a national organization, or at least the skeleton of one. It took several months, but there were official district offices throughout the country, and informal grass-roots offices in dozens of cities. Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been raised nationally to pay for the trains and cabs, the posters and stamps, the telephones and telegrams, the rents and the little miscellaneous things like coffee and doughnuts for the December picket lines.

But it was too late. It was just too late. It had all taken too long. By the time Untermyer's organized boycott was skeletally in place, winter had arrived. Too much time had been lost. The crucial late-summer, fall, and early-winter German exports had not been sufficiently disrupted to have an impact during the brunt of the cold winter months. Untermyer's people tried. But they just couldn't do it in time. Many had perceived the coming defeat even before the final campaign began on September ro. But they had to try. They were ultimately forced to accept the awesome reality: Germany did not crack that winter.

[admin]

Epilogue: The Transfer Years

Germany did not crack that winter, but the anti-Nazi boycott continued. Month after month, and indeed year after year, Samuel Untermyer tirelessly worked toward the economic downfall of the Third Reich. There were periodic showdowns with major department stores, with American industries buying German commodities, and even with the U.S. Postal Service, which awarded lucrative transatlantic contracts to German shipping lines. The Reich was able to regularly foil the boycott's full effectiveness by exporting via third countries and by mislabeling German merchandise as "Made in Switzerland," "Made in Saxony," or "Made in Austria."

The American and world masses grew tired of incessant boycott pleas, key workers became too ill to continue, and funds dried up. Thus, vital boycott bastions often crumbled from apathy or neglect. Constant vigilance was required to rebuild the breaches. Boycotting became a cause celebre among a dedicated core of volunteers, who were often a few hours too late to stop a German delivery, or a few dollars too short to achieve a regional victory.

For Germany, the boycott was a constant harassment, denying the Nazis the economic recovery they sought. Each autumn, the Reich would announce a Winter Relief program to undo the economic damage of the previous spring and summer. Winter Relief became institutional and the Nazis turned it into a gala patriotic season of struggle. The hated one-pot meals were popularized by a gamut of gimmicks -- from circus elephants lugging one-pot posters through town squares, to staged extravaganzas featuring Germany's finest chefs, bedecked in white uniforms, each with his gourmet rendering of a fifty-pfennig, one-pot meal. Door-to-door relief collections became a celebrity affair, with Hermann Goering and Magda Goebbels jingling their tin collection boxes on street corners along with the rank and file. Even when Winter Relief was only marginally necessary, the Reich maintained it to keep morale high.

The indefatigable work of Untermyer and the other champions of boycott kept recovery out of Hitler's reach. It forced the Third Reich to vigilantly restrain anti-Jewish violence in Germany, since each incident helped intensify the anti-Nazi movement. In its first years, the boycott also helped prevent Hitler from carrying out his vow to conquer Europe. Plagued by boycott and antagonistic trade barriers, and continually denied foreign exchange, the Reich was for years unable to acquire the raw materials needed to rebuild its war machine. Hitler was repeatedly forced to push back his war timetables. Hjalmar Schacht, charged with creating the war economy, devised the only alternative. It was the so-called New Plan, begun in late 1934, whereby Germany would withdraw from Western commerce, execute bilateral barter agreements with Eastern and underdeveloped countries rich in raw materials, and achieve a high level of economic self-sufficiency. In this way, the war machine could be built despite the scarcity of foreign currency.

In the meantime, Jewish existence in Germany underwent a rapid dismantling. Jewish communities in many provincial districts and towns essentially disappeared. The Jewish niche in many economic sectors vanished as industries and professions cleansed themselves of Jewish participation. Jewish cultural contributions were banned. Jewish scholarship in universities ended almost entirely, with few opportunities for Jewish youth to advance beyond secondary school.

The more repressive conditions in the provinces forced Jews to migrate to the large cities, such as Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Munich, where Jewish communities were allowed -- in condensed form -- to maintain a special subculture of religious, cultural, and athletic activities, a revival of Hebrew, and a rapid integration with the Zionist movement. The Nazis delighted in the Jewish subculture and demanded that it thrive. Indeed, every Jewish gathering was approved and attended by the Gestapo. For Aryans, an active Jewish subculture provided reinforcement that Jews were an alien people who had no place in Germany. In 1935, Jewish existence continued to contract as fewer Jewish people could even survive in the Reich. Getting out was the only alternative to inevitable starvation.

As Jewish existence was dismantling in Germany, however, it was reconstructing in Jewish Palestine. The Haavara brought in many of the fundamentals: coal, iron, cement, fertilizer, seed, hammers, saws, and cultivators. Haavara also brought in the capital: cash, loans, mortgages, deposits, and credits. All this produced an economic explosion in Jewish Palestine, requiring companies to be formed, investments to be made, and most of all, jobs to be filled.

Palestine's economic absorptiveness tripled, perhaps quadrupled, within a year or so of the Transfer Agreement. Economic opportunity translated into a dramatic increase in immigration certificates under the twice-yearly "worker quota." Most of these certificates were awarded to Mapai's halutzim, the young pioneers eager to plant the seed, dig the ditches, and trowel the cement. As more buildings were erected, more kibbutzim established, and more small factories founded, ever more job openings were created for halutzim. The spiral of economic expansion increased the flow of worker immigrants from just a few thousand yearly before the Transfer Agreement to more than 50,000 during the two years following. Most were Mapai halutzim, and only about 20 percent of them were from Germany.

Jewish Palestine's rapidly expanding economy brought more than worker and commercial opportunities. There also developed a need for more doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, hoteliers, restaurateurs, and entrepreneurs. Many of these niches were filled by the several thousand German Jews who came over on unlimited capitalist certificates by virtue of Haavara.

By 1935, Palestine's need to sell German merchandise to offset Jewish deposits in transfer accounts became greater than anyone expected. The Palestinian market was becoming saturated. So the Zionist Organization established another transfer corporation, this one called the Near and Middle East Commercial Corporation, assigned the acronym NEMICO. NEMICO operated a regional sales network in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, and elsewhere in the region, coordinating mainly through Bank Zilkha of Beirut. Mideast markets were opened for a vast array of key German exports, from Volkswagens to municipal bridgeworks. This worked in tandem with Hjalmar Schacht's New Plan of exchanging German goods for the raw materials of underdeveloped nations.

As NEMICO was opening new markets to German commerce, so too was the Palestinian citrus industry. Year after year, growers were increasingly compelled to become purveyors of German goods to guarantee vital Reich purchases of orange and grapefruit crops. Most of Palestine's commercial relationships with Nazi Germany remained a secret from the Jewish world, but several deals came to light. Trade statistics published by the British could not hide the unparalleled increase in German exports to Palestine. The Third World Jewish Conference held in Geneva in 1934 finally passed a resolution condemning Palestinian-German trade and demanding the Zionist Organization terminate all such contacts. Pressure within the Zionist world to disavow the Transfer Agreement and its complex of collateral undertakings became so intense by mid-1935 that the Anglo-Palestine Bank announced it was no longer willing to front for the Zionist Organization.

The question of abandoning the Haavara was debated during a period of escalated anti-Jewish persecution. The Third Reich was unhappy with the slow pace of Jewish exits from Germany. Life was therefore made progressively more unbearable. The list of Jewish prohibitions became more and more all-encompassing. Jews were not even allowed to enter many towns. The announcement in mid-1935 that racial laws would be decreed at the NSDAP's fall convention in Nuremberg presaged a turning point in the Reich's anti-Semitic campaign. The laws would deprive all Jews of their German citizenship and almost all legal rights. Moreover, the Nuremberg Laws would define exactly who was "Jewish," and were expected to include anyone with Jewish grandparents. This would extend the political pogrom to tens of thousands of German Jews who had previously felt somewhat safe in their niche on the periphery of the Jewish community.

As Nazi persecutions heightened in 1935, the world, saturated with approximately 100,000 penniless refugees, began closing its doors. Palestine was becoming the only haven available. As many Jews as possible had to be brought over from Germany as fast as possible -- not to save their culture, not to save their wealth, but to save their lives.

A showdown over the Transfer Agreement occurred in late 1935 during the Nineteenth Zionist Congress held in Lucerne, Switzerland. The German Zionists were this time allowed to attend, with Adolf Eichmann monitoring from afar the delegation's every move. Mindful of Eichmann's distant scrutiny, the German delegates were the principal opponents of any boycott attempts. After great debate, the Congress finally declared that the Zionist Organization would openly take control of the Transfer Agreement from the Anglo-Palestine Bank. The bank complied by transferring its stock in Haavara Ltd. to the Jewish Agency. Just days later, the promised Nuremberg laws were published. The place for Jews in Germany was officially dissolved. The place for Jews in Palestine was all that was left.

Just two years before, Palestine had been a sparsely populated, mostly barren region inhabited by 800,000 Arabs, some in villages and towns, but most in rocky rural settings. These Arabs coexisted uneasily with approximately 200,000 religious Jews and Zionist pioneers, 80,000 of whom were in Jerusalem, the remainder living in a collection of unconnected settlement enclaves. From January to December of 1935, more than 53,000 European Jews, including almost 9,000 Germans, entered Palestine through worker and capitalist schedules, most of them by virtue of the new economy created by Haavara. By 1936, the Jewish population had doubled and those enclaves had begun growing and connecting. Town settlements and kibutzim had been planted up and down the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea between Tel Aviv and Haifa. The town of Haifa had itself grown into a bustling German immigrant city. More kibbutzim were appearing throughout the western Galilee. Palestine was on its way to a Jewish majority, on its way to Jewish statehood.

The Arabs revolted. Led by the virulently anti-Semitic pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab activists in April 1936 began a six-month campaign of bombings, assassinations, ambushes, sabotage, and general strikes. Their target was all that was Jewish or British in Palestine, from synagogues to post offices. Only a rigorous crackdown by Great Britain restored a facade of order. However, Arab violence prompted the British to now talk openly of a permanent political solution in Palestine, creating two sovereign mini-states, one Arab, one Jewish. For the first time, the international community was seriously discussing establishing not a Jewish colony, not a Jewish homeland, not an autonomous Jewish canton, but a sovereign Jewish State. The Nazis were shocked.

For years Nazi leaders had cooperated with the Zionists, not out of sympathy with Jewish nationalism, but to effect the removal of Jews from Germany and to break the anti-Hitler boycott. Throughout it all, leading Nazis would regularly declare the need for a Jewish State. But Aryan concepts of Jewish inferiority never permitted them to really believe that the Jews could actually assemble a state. Yet in mid-1937, a British government commission formalized the recommendation: Disputed Palestine should be divided into sovereign Arab and Jewish states.

The Nazi hierarchy broke into two distinct schools of thought. The first wanted to expand the Haavara to concentrate as many Jews as possible in distant Palestine. The Jews would then be isolated from Germany's enemies, such as France and Great Britain. Later, when Germany was ready, perhaps it could still tackle the "Jewish menace" while Jews were concentrated and prone in one remote setting. The second school of thought, led by Eichmann, believed the Jews could and would create a state, that the Third Reich had been duped through Haavara into supplying the men and materials, and that once established, that state would become a "Jewish Vatican" devoted to Germany's destruction. Eichmann's answer was mass dispersion of utterly destitute Jews throughout the remote regions of South America and Africa, where local populations would rise up against them and wipe them out.

In the fall of 1937, after several months of uncertainty, der Fuhrer finally decided in favor of Haavara; the government added its insistence that Jews be expelled not only from Germany but from all of Europe. Hitler's final attempt to prepare for war -- the so-called Four Year Plan -- was already under way. He wholly expected to begin his conquest of Europe in late 1939. Germany did not want yet another Jewish problem waiting when the Reich took over neighboring lands.

By 1937, Germany was no longer a powerless aggressor in Europe. The Nazi regime was partially armed and fully dangerous. No one in Europe wanted to provoke Germany by maintaining a Jewish presence. Since Palestine was the only open door for ousted Jews, Germany's neighbors began concluding transfer agreements with the Jewish Agency.

The first was Poland, which in late 1937 authorized a transfer company named Halifin Ltd. What Haavara had done for German Jewry and their assets, Halifin (Hebrew for "exchange") began doing for Polish Jewry and their assets, although on a far smaller scale.

The building of Palestine and the emigration of Jews literally became a matter of life or death. Every acre, every certificate, every seat on a ship bound for Haifa was yet another Jew saved from extinction in Germany. As the whole world knew, the rest of Europe was not far behind. Hitler's surrogates throughout Europe had successfully legitimized the persecution and expulsion of Jews. By the end of 1937, violent Nazi factions and their allies throughout Central and Eastern Europe were tired of waiting. Four years had passed since Hitler had assumed power, and the Jews had not yet been eradicated. Local pogroms became commonplace, not only in Germany but in Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, and Austria.

Time was running out. Yet Palestine was far from ready to receive the hundreds of thousands needing to flee Europe. At the same time, British authorities had virtually closed Palestine to Jewish refugees in order to placate Arab opposition. Worker immigration quotas previously geared to economic absorptiveness were artificially stunted, allowing just several hundred desperate Jews into Palestine each month. The only way to continue the transfer and rescue was to bring over large groups of so-called capitalist emigrants possessing £1,000 each. Capitalist emigrants could bypass the quota system. But the impoverished German Jewish community was now almost out of assets to deposit and transfer, and the cash-strapped Reichsbank would no longer provide the required foreign currency.

It was now up to Haavara to acquire the foreign currency needed to bring Jews to safety. Working with the Reich Economics Ministry and the international consortium of creditor banks known as the Standstill Committee, which governed various aspects of Germany's foreign exchange, yet another transfer company was formed. This one was called the International Trade and Investment Agency Ltd., assigned the acronym INTRIA. INTRIA was permitted to intercept all relief donations intended for German Jews and divert them to Palestine. A special "relief mark" was introduced by the Reich and sold at banks around the world. By purchasing these relief marks, people in America or France could send charity dollars to their destitute loved ones still in Germany. An American donor, for example, would purchase $100 in relief marks from the American Express office in New York. American Express would credit the INTRIA account in London. INTRIA, however, would not send the money to the intended recipient in Germany. Instead, the money would be credited to a Zionist bureau in Palestine. INTRIA would then send a notice to Haavara's Berlin office, instructing it to pay the German recipient the equivalent of $100 in reichmarks from the blocked pool of Jewish deposits that had still not been transferred. In this way 71,000 donations from around the world, totaling almost $900,000, were diverted to Palestine and infused into the effort to build the Jewish home. Once in Palestine, the money was rewoven into various financial instruments and provided to desperate emigrants, enabling them to enter Palestine.

And still, the pace was not fast enough for Nazi Germany. No matter how much the Zionists expanded the economic structure of Palestine, the British did all in their power to obstruct the entry of Jews. With war imminent, Britain was worried about oil and strategic cooperation from Moslem groups in Iraq, Egypt, and India who opposed Jewish entry into Palestine even under these most dire circumstances. In mid-1938, an intergovernmental conference was held at Evian in an attempt to solve the crisis of both the refugees and the Jews still remaining in Germany. The Jewish Agency presented a plan for a worldwide German merchandise sale to finance the rescue of the remaining Jews of Germany and other European countries and their transfer to Palestine -- the only haven available. But no action on a global transfer plan was taken. Few refugees were helped.

Nazi Germany was outraged. The world would not cooperate in the expulsion of Jews from Germany. In early November 1938, as a clear warning shot, Nazi officials staged a spectacular national pogrom. In a single night, thousands of Jews were dragged into concentration camps; roving bands filled the streets, beating and killing any Jews they could find; nearly every synagogue in Germany was set aflame; thousands of Jewish-owned store windows were broken in a ritual of hatred and sadism that became known to history as the Night of the Broken Glass -- Kristallnacht.

By the summer of 1939, Austria had been "absorbed" by Germany; Czechoslovakia had been dismembered under a Hitler Diktat. The question haunting the world was not whether war would come, but when. And still the British refused to reopen Palestine to admit the Jews frantic to leave Europe before the promised bloodbath. In desperation, Haavara officials shuttled from European capital to capital to negotiate transfer agreements.

One haavara was established with remnant Czechoslovakia pegged to the Jewish purchase of Czechoslovakian National Bank debentures. Rumania agreed to a haavara financing a fleet of freighters. Hungary, Italy, and several other nations under Fascist influence also signed agreements. By late summer of 1939, transfer agreements existed in at least six European countries.

Palestine was not quite ready, but it would suffice. European Jews were facing utter annihilation, and Zionism, through the dispassionate mobilization of money and malice, was now ready to rescue, ready to receive, ready for redemption.

And then, in September 1939, Germany invaded Poland. The Second World War had begun. Great Britain's mandated territory Palestine was forced to break all relations with Germany. The upheaval in Europe also forced the rupture of the other transfer agreements, most of them even before they began. Germany rolled through Europe, conquering or establishing puppet states with little difficulty. Its first order of business after every conquest was to ghettoize the Jews and then deport them to concentration camps where they were worked as slaves, often until death. At some point, too many Jews came under German jurisdiction. They could not be efficiently transported, housed, and worked in labor camps. Efforts were made to send them to Palestine via underground Zionist rescue routes. The Gestapo, working with elite Zionist rescue units known as Mossad, dispatched Jews in trucks, rickety ships, and on foot via Turkey, Bulgaria, and Rumania. When Britain would accept no more and the Zionist solution was no longer viable, a new solution was needed. In vast killing factories the Jews would be gassed and cremated. The names Auschwitz and Treblinka were added to the memory of man. This would be the Final Solution.

Six thousand per day went to Auschwitz alone. Some were fooled. Most knew. The world outside began to suspect. Newspapers reported the existence of the killing camps, front-page cartoons depicted the Angel of Death standing over the Jews of Europe, and the clouds over the world darkened with the smoke of incinerated human beings.

The struggle for a Jewish Homeland now entered a new and ever more painful phase. Without the transfer machinery, Zionist rescue committees were forced to pick and choose who would live and who would die. They could not save everyone in every place. Emphasis was placed on the young and the strong, who could survive the taxing journey to Palestine, often in the bottoms of leaky barges, squeezed between a cold, slimy wall find a grim, hungry comrade. They were also chosen for their ability to survive in a beloved but hostile land, wracked by desert heats, Arab enemies, and British masters. Last but not least, they were chosen to become a new breed of Jew that would never stand before a pit waiting for the bullet to arrive, never stand in a line waiting for a man with white gloves to send some to the left and some to the right -- they would never stand and wait for destruction. They would fight first.

In the period between late 1933 and 1941, over $30 million had been transferred directly via Haavara. Perhaps another $70 million had flowed into Palestine via corollary German commercial agreements and special international banking transactions, this during a period when the average Palestinian Jew earned a dollar a day. Some of Israel's major industrial enterprises were founded with those monies, including Mekoroth, the national waterworks; Lodzia, a leading textile firm; and Rassco, a major land developer. And vast quantities of material were stockpiled, including coal, irrigation pipes, iron and metal products for companies and enterprises not yet in existence.

From 1933 to 1941, approximately one-hundred immigrant settlements were established along strategic corridors in western Galilee, the coastal plan, and in the northern Negev. About sixty of these settlements were established between 1936 and 1940. Most were possible only because Haavara or Haavara-related funds flowed to Zionist agencies for land purchase and development. And the settlements were made possible in large part because the Haavara economy had expanded the worker immigrant quota, allowing the influx of halutzim and German settlers. In 1948, the outline of these strategic settlements approximated the borders of the new Jewish State, for each settlement was not only a demarcation of Jewish life, each was an outpost of Jewish defense where battles were fought and a boundary line was ultimately drawn.

Between 1933 and 1941, 20,000 German Jews directly transferred to Palestine via Haavra. Many of them never collected their money, and often when they did, it was only partially in cash and mostly in mandatory stocks and mortgages. Another 40,000 German Jews emigrated to Palestine during this period via the indirect and corollary aspects of transfer. Many of these people, especially in the late 1930S, were allowed to transfer actual replicas of their homes and factories -- indeed rough replicas of their very existences.

And something intangible also transferred with the German Jews during those years. It had nothing to do with concrete or cash accounts and had everything to do with culture. A German fondness for music, for art, for spotless homes, for cafes with chocolate tortes, for philosophy, for antiquities, for theater, for the finer things that struggling Palestine had never stopped to develop. These intangibles were transferred like everything else.

After World War II, when hundreds of thousands of Jews from a dozen different nations wandered through Europe stateless and displaced, each Jew a remnant of a family, a town or a ghetto, all ravaged survivors without homes and without lives to return to, after the Holocaust, when the moment of the in-gathering of the exiles was at hand, Israel was ready. A nation was waiting.

Fifteen years earlier, it hadn't existed. Fifteen years earlier few could have visualized what was to come, what was to be. But a small group of men did. They foresaw it all. That's why nothing would stop them; no force was too great to overcome. These men were the creators of Israel. And in order to do so, each had to touch his hand to the most controversial undertaking in Jewish history -- the Transfer Agreement. It paved the way for a state. Was it madness, or was it genius?

[admin]

AFTERWORD

The Transfer Moment by Abraham H. Foxman

For years, students of the Holocaust have struggled over whether the Zionists did right or wrong in negotiating the Transfer Agreement with the Hitler regime. This arrangement transferred some 60,000 Jews and $100 million -- almost $1.4 billion in 2001 dollars -- from Germany to Palestine during the pre-War years. To do so necessitated protracted commercial dealings with the Nazis, and flew in the face of the global Jewish-led anti- Nazi boycott striving to topple the Hitler regime in its first years. The debate back in the thirties briefly tore the Jewish world apart before being relegated to the realm of a hushed necessity. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, the whole subject of the Haavara, or Transfer, was reduced to an obscure footnote. Despite the enormity of its economic and human importance to the Jews of Europe and the development of Palestine, the entire subject is conspicuously absent from almost all standard histories of the period.

But the debate was rekindled in 1984 when Edwin Black's book, The Transfer Agreement, appeared and told the full story for the first time. It vividly describes in tense style the minute-to-minute negotiations as Zionists rushed to save who and what could be saved in the face of a darkening future.

People are still debating the Transfer Agreement, often just as acrimoniously as its proponents and opponents did in 1933. But what the men and women of those terrible years slowly grew to understand and painfully accept has eluded the comfortable among us. Why? Because those who look back were not there, and did not live through the terrifying hours of the twelve-year Reich.

I was born in Poland. I was hidden in Vilna by my Polish Catholic nursemaid, who baptized me, and I was reunited with my parents only after the War. That is why I am alive today.

I have spent all of my adult life in the organized defense of Jewish rights and dignity. That is why I live today.

Desperate situations, hard choices, agonizing possibilities, and the debates between rescue and relief have filled my world since infancy. I have an understanding of the heartbreaking decisions that must be made by leaders, just as I understand the pressing compulsion by all people to confront those decisions.

In my mind, the Transfer Agreement's most important and indispensible element was the rescue of people. The rescue of assets comes second. But clearly, if the Zionists could rescue people only if they had assets and once rescued, assets were needed to maintain those people in Palestine; it was the Zionists' duty to deal in assets. The cruel reality was that the price of salvaging these lives and assets was widespread trafficking in German goods.

Unquestionably, without the Transfer Agreement, German Jewry's property -- and the people it sustained -- would have been completely liquidated by the Nazis. Today's headlines are filled with tales of pilfered Jewish gold, Jewish art, Jewish insurance, Jewish property, and Jewish slave labor. Of course, the ultimate and most inestimable -- and irreplaceable -- pilferage was the theft of Jewish life and culture that can never be replaced. The Transfer Agreement played a role for some 60,000 Jews who were allowed to live and transfer a modicum of their possessions to the only place in the world that would accept them -- Palestine.

The potential for the subsequent transfer agreements negotiated in other countries, such as Czechoslovakia and Hungary, boggles the mind. Had the other Haavara agreements been implemented in the other European countries, we can only imagine how many more hundreds of thousands of Jews could have been saved. Unfortunately, the war broke out before these transfer organizations could make any meaningful progress.

The counterquestion is whether it was correct to deal with the Devil, and if the dealing itself strengthened that Devil. Decades later, it is easy to employ judgmental hindsight. Those who do so were not there but seem to think that books, records, and movies can adequately recreate the context. We are talking about the thirties -- a very bad time for European Jews. But no one back then could imagine how bad things would actually become. Even Vladimir Jabotinsky, who opposed the Haavara and had the vision to urge all Jews to leave Europe, could not imagine how much worse it would get. In light of the bitter reality of the Holocaust and the world's unwillingness to stop it, the decision to transfer Jews and their possessions to Palestine was a wise one.

Today, it is easy to display wisdom and perspective in retrospect. It is easy for us to judge in hindsight. But try as we might, there is no virtual reality button for Nazi Germany. We cannot recreate the emotion and context surrounding those bleak days. We cannot fathom what was right and wrong as much as the threatened communities themselves. True hindsight belongs not to pundits, but to history.

Jewish and Zionist leaders of the day confronted a history repeatedly marked by pogroms and expulsion. Each time we emerged from crisis, we hoped for the best. We always thought times had changed, that enlightenment had come, that things would be better. "How could things be worse than the Middle Ages, worse than the Czar's oppression?" we asked. "How bad could it become in a cultured society such as Germany, where Jews proudly displayed military medals and falsely felt completely integrated into society?" But, "How Bad?" is indeed the central question Zionism has always posed ... and always sought to preempt before learning the answer.

I remember a scene in the film Ship of Fools. The boat is sailing back to the Reich. German Jews are seated around the captain's table. One of the Jews cannot believe the dire consequences awaiting them. "What are they going to do," he asks incredulously, "Kill a million Jews?" Many European Jews went to their death precisely because they couldn't imagine that such atrocities could occur.

Nor could anyone. Zionists negotiating the Transfer Agreement did not anticipate the concentration camps and gas chambers. No civilized person could. But those in Zionist leadership did understand one precept: It can always get worse. They understood that even their darkest nightmares could somehow become blacker in ways they could not predict -- and indeed no one since has ever been able to explain. For this reason, statebuilding was the Zionist priority. Transfer was their mechanism. German goods were the hateful modality. As a result, lives were saved, property transferred, and an indispensable column of the human, economic, and physical infrastructure of the future state of Israel was erected.

Motivated by the desire to save both the threatened community and future communities, the Zionists had to coldly assume the distasteful, gun-to-temple responsibilities of standing up to the Devil in his own lair and negotiating a way out. That way was the Transfer Agreement.

Certainly, we have learned from the Haavara. Its legacy has been replayed in the rescue of Soviet, Ethiopian, Syrian, Iranian, and Yemenite Jewry. The mechanisms and methods have differed, but have always abided by the same imperative. At some point, when the effort for relief and defense yields to the rush to rescue, negotiations are needed. A mechanism is needed. It will be created.

The enemies of the Jewish people and the Jewish nation will always claim that Zionist undertook the Transfer just to promote emigration. Just to build their state. That's the easy cop-out for people who don't see red when Jewish blood spills. But we do. The people who were there know better. And thanks to Edwin Black's The Transfer Agreement, future generations can also know what the victims of that day ultimately and painfully understood.

Abraham H. Foxman is national director of the Anti-Defamation League. This Afterword was originally written for the 2001 edition.